by Charles
The reason I seldom read Gloom Juan Cole and his weblog Malformed Informed Comment is because he subscribes to the Immutable Laws of Gilliard, described below the fold. His problem, though a smart and knowledgeable fellow, is that he’s so blindered and shackled to his ideology that he’s prone to whopping mistakes and misjudgments. His downtalking the Iraqi election last January was one example, and his entries this past week are the latest outbreak.
So obvious and glaring were his recent errors that even a dKos diarist took Cole to task. Martin Kramer busted Cole on both his wrong interpretation of history and his duplicitousness, both here and in a follow-up here. It’s one thing for a semi-anonymous sweatpant-wearing blogger to be so blatantly wrong and pettyminded, but it’s another thing altogether for a prominent professor of Middle East studies and Chairman of the Middle East Studies Association to be so. Dare I say that Cole was being McCarthyesque by getting personal and calling for oppo research against Kramer?
Tony Badran of Across the Bay starts here and follows up here, here, here, here and here. Ouch. All in all, a bad week for the academic.
So what are these Immutable Laws of Gilliard? In the days before he had his own blog and when he was a prolific dKos commenter, Steve Gilliard employed certain tactics when discussing the pre-war and war efforts. Inspired by the Immutable Laws of Dowd, I thought that Gilliard and the like (including Cole) deserved their own Immutable Laws:
- If there’s bad news, report it. Add little snippets on how awful things are. Liberally toss in words like "quagmire", "ignorance", "hegemony", "hubris", "incompetence", "lies" and the like.
- If there’s neutral news, cherry-pick the worst parts and write things like "this can’t be good" or "things are going from bad to worse" or "this has been another bad week for Bush". Ignore positive developments by downplaying or sidestepping them, or trying to discredit them.
- If there’s good news and no bad news can be plucked, deny that it’s actually good news. Write something like "this looks like good news but it’s really not". Or, "this can’t be right, these reports can’t be trusted" or "it may sound good but this will surely backfire on us" or "oh, sure, this may be a positive development but look at all these other areas where things are falling apart".
- Add no constructive suggestions or solutions.
- Always take the obligatory dig at the Bush administration.
- Make sure to add an ominous forecast or two.
- Ignore all past predictions that were proved wrong, don’t admit you were wrong, don’t re-visit past wrong posts to see where they went wrong, soldier on and make more Chicken Little predictions. When confronted with past wrong predictions, ignore them or change the subject, then default back to telling everyone how awful things are going.
The problem is that these commenters are so locked into a certain worldview that they refuse to process information that contradicts their doctrine. That is why I only read them occasionally.
The problem is that these commenters are so locked into a certain worldview that they refuse to process information that contradicts their doctrine.
Charles, even assuming every word you say about Juan Cole were true, can you not see that you are describing yourself?
Well, I suppose if you could, you wouldn’t write posts like this.
Query to the kitten:
Would turning the list around into a set of Laws of Bird be considered a posting violation?
The reason I seldom read Gloom Juan Cole and his weblog Malformed Informed Comment . . .
Didn’t you just say in the thread next door that you’re 44 years old? Are you sure you didn’t mess up a digit there?
In other news, Juan Cole was the first commentator I know of to suggest that there was an Egyptian connection to the London bombing. He noticed that the post claiming responsibility for the bombing contained the sort of rhetoric associated with Egyptian radicals. Pretty good, I thought.
As I noted in another thread, the feud between Kramer and Cole is very old news. It is the mark of a real partisan to pick an episode as evidence that one of the parties is at fault. If you wanted to tell the story of that fight in an honest manner, you would trace it back to its origins.
His problem, though a smart and knowledgeable fellow, is that he’s so blindered and shackled to his ideology that he’s prone to whopping mistakes and misjudgments.
Well, we could at least eliminate the “though” clause if the description were turned around on the author.
And that is why I generally skip over posts by Charles.
“Charles, even assuming every word you say about Juan Cole were true, can you not see that you are describing yourself?
Well, I suppose if you could, you wouldn’t write posts like this.”
Charles,
You just have to ignore commentators like this. Notice this person doesn’t try to refute anything in your post, just bad-mouth you.
Where are the intellectuals that the left is known for? Is this the technique that is used to debate issues at this site?
The juxtaposition of this: “His problem, though a smart and knowledgeable fellow, is that he’s so blindered and shackled to his ideology that he’s prone to whopping mistakes and misjudgments”
with CB’s Nature of the Beast II post and own comments thereon is just too good to miss.
CB, you really know how to bring a chuckle to a liberal on a Friday morning.
Really, writing about being “blinkered” at the same time that you’re defending the Iraq invasion as the only alternative to our prior ME policy is just classic.
I’d like to have our referees confirm IP numbers. This has to be a brilliant parody of the real CB. Not even his brain could handle such cognitive dissonance, even on a Friday.
blogme; Is this the technique that is used to debate issues at this site?
Nope. If you notice, Charles didn’t raise any issues for debate. All he’s doing is badmouthing Juan Cole.
I think Juan Cole is too pessimistic about Iraq and overly quick to paint anything the Bush administration does in a negative light, but I’m not sure what all the fuss is about in this instance.
Having had mixed feelings about the invasion prior to the event and having a fuzzy memory about it now isn’t nearly as bad as implying that certain Iraqi bloggers are CIA stooges. This current brouhaha just doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
Charles, the single biggest problem I have with your writing is this: I think you evaluate sources’ credibility and reliability based primarily, if not only, on whether they agree with you. I disagree strongly with Cole on Israel, I find his comments borderline offensive sometimes. But he knows what he’s talking about, his track record on analyzing and predicting Iraq is about 100x better than yours, he actually speaks Arabic–read what you want, but he knows what he’s talking about.
As for “McCarthyesque”, for an actual example of Senators trying to personally retaliate against someone for constitutionally protected speech see this comment.
“The problem is that these commenters are so locked into a certain worldview that they refuse to process information that contradicts their doctrine. That is why I only read them occasionally.”
I’m confused. I thought he stated a reason for his post and gave some examples of how there views don’t check out in the end.
The problem is that these commenters are so locked into a certain worldview that they refuse to process information that contradicts their doctrine.
CB, these are common feature of your commentary. In fact, your posts are more afflicted with the sins you ascribe to Cole.
Actually, what makes Cole readable is that he provides great primary source info and is very clear about his point of view about it. You can read for the raw info, and take the opinions with whatever grain of salt you bring to the table.
That’s what makes for good weblongs and comments — a clear separation of facts and commentary so that reader can take both for what they are.
There is a clear example of your bad behavior in your own post:
So obvious and glaring were his recent errors that even a dKos diarist took Cole to task.
Except that anyone can register and post a diary at dKos — there is no proper basis to infer anything about this diary simply because it is at dKos. The diary itself has the earmarkings of troll commentary. You are sophisticated to know this, but you gleefully put a bogus spin on it
“so obvoius and glaring”
“even a dKos diarist took Cole to task”
These are the logical and rhetorical devices of hackery. Clean up your own act.
P.S., I read the links, and the criticism of Cole is mostly off-base. In many instances, Cole expresses something clearly as an opinion, but the critique flyspecks it as a misstatement of fact. For example, Cole states that it is his conviction that 9/11 was tied to various Israeli events. I think he’s wrong, but when someone is clear that they are giving an opinion, its nuts to critique them for getting the facts wrong.
the immutable laws are nice!
it’s too bad liberals expect “integrity” from each other all the time. it’d be nice if just once WE could be traitors and have the whole media spin it like we weren’t.
Blogme–I thought he stated a reason for his post and gave some examples of how there views don’t check out in the end.
I will admit that the biggest reason Charles’ posts do not make a bigger impact on me is his habit of citing someone elses argument with no commentary of his own analyzing the cite. I’d like to see him unpack things a bit more or evaluate his sources a bit more. That’s an academic bias built from years of having this hammered into me by profs. It ends up reading like Charles’ opinions tacked on to other people’s arguments, which is not to say that Charles has not presented an argument, merely that he does little to make them his own. The only part that sounds like Charles is the snark, not the work that led up to the snark.
Intended as constructive criticism.
I will admit that the biggest reason Charles’ posts do not make a bigger impact on me is his habit of citing someone elses argument with no commentary of his own analyzing the cite.
There’s also his habit of citing himself without identifying it.
What seems to offend some people is the fact that Cole, like other smart people, is not right about everything and has to be correlated with other sources, which themselves are less than omniscient.
We in the reality-based community call this condition of perpetual uncertainty “life.” Others call it “partisanship.”
Did you read Cole today? Remember when the White House asked Pakistan to announce the arrest or killing of high value Al Qaida targets during the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Well, they did, arresting Tanzanian Ahmad Khalfan Gheilani, whose capture led to the capture of Pakistani Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan.
On the basis of Al Qaida information predating 9/11 on Khan’s laptop, former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge held a news conference announcing a new security alert, eventually resulting in the publication of Khan’s name.
Trouble was, Khan had been turned by UK and Pakistani agents and was the first and only double agent available for intelligence against Al Qaida.
Having their agent blown, British investigators had to move early. Some suspects escaped after Naeem Noor Khan’s name was publicized.
One of the July 7 London bombers, Muhammad Sadique Khan, appears to have been connected to a suspect under surveillance in early August, 2004, around the time the British operation was blown.
There’s also his habit of citing himself without identifying it.
Shaw: “I often quote myself; it lends spice to my conversation.”
Charles,
This is just ridiculous. The dKos diarist quotes Kramer as saying, “There’s not a single passage in the 9/11 report mentioning Sharon’s (or Israel’s) policies, and I challenge him to produce one. Cole just made it up. And in point of fact, the report’s narrative definitively contradicts him.”
But if you spend 30 seconds downloading the report and searching for Sharon, the first occurrence includes this quote on page 250: “According to KSM, Bin Ladin had been urging him to advance the date of the attacks. In 200, for instance, KSM remembers Bin Ladin pushing him to launch attacks amid the controversy after then-Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.”
Look, Kramer is flat out lying and the lie is trivial to verify. The dKos diarist passed on that lie as flat, and Charles, as usual, failed to do any fact checking at all. Cole’s corrected statement is totally backed up by the text of the 9/11 report, and Kramer’s comments on that report are complete fiction.
Charles, will you apologize for passing these inaccuracies?
Charles, will you apologize for passing these inaccuracies?
He won’t, and we’ll never hear from him again about the subject*
*but now that I’ve posted this comment, Charles will be compelled to answer, most likely in some non-sequitor fashion**
**now that I have added this footnote, my original comment will take precedence, therefore we will be greeted with silence.
Charles: His problem, though a smart and knowledgeable fellow, is that he’s so blindered and shackled to his ideology that he’s prone to whopping mistakes and misjudgments.
I have this terrible urge to dig up a few earlier whoppers made by a certain party due to being blindered by ideology. Terrible urge. Must fight it.
Oh, wait. Said party might just be a sweatpant-wearing blogger.
So, in short – only knowledgeable and well-read bloggers should be held dogpiled for mistakes. Regular slobs with any two-bit opinion without anything to back it up are held to a different standard.
How do sweatpant-wearing bloggers compare with those who wear pajamas?
The ones with sweatpants are the keeners.
bloggers
Regarding the “Immutable Laws”:
1. If there’s bad news, report it. Add little snippets on how awful things are. Liberally toss in words like “quagmire”, “ignorance”, “hegemony”, “hubris”, “incompetence”, “lies” and the like.
You are confusing opinion with objective reporting. Journalists need to convey a sense of objectivity. Bloggers can use any positive or negative qualifiers they want.
2. If there’s neutral news, cherry-pick the worst parts and write things like “this can’t be good” or “things are going from bad to worse” or “this has been another bad week for Bush”. Ignore positive developments by downplaying or sidestepping them, or trying to discredit them.
You obviously don’t read Informed Comment very often, if at all. Cole often expresses negative and positive posibilities about developments in Iraq, as with the rest of the Middle East.
3. If there’s good news and no bad news can be plucked, deny that it’s actually good news. Write something like “this looks like good news but it’s really not”. Or, “this can’t be right, these reports can’t be trusted” or “it may sound good but this will surely backfire on us” or “oh, sure, this may be a positive development but look at all these other areas where things are falling apart”.
And this is complete and utter nonsense. Cole frequently posts news and comment about positive outcomes or developments in Iraq. So frequently, in fact, that now I’m sure that you simply never read his blog. And as you seem to be commenting on a ficticous Juan Cole blog, or one of your own invention, I think we can disregard the rest of your “immutable laws.”
So, in short – only knowledgeable and well-read bloggers should be held dogpiled for mistakes. Regular slobs with any two-bit opinion without anything to back it up are held to a different standard.
Strangely enough, I actually agree with this — as long as the regular slobs are given the attention and respect they deserve. The height of damning with faint praise, that is.
…as long as the regular slobs are given the attention and respect they deserve.
If this were how things worked, Instapundit would have three hits a day.
The problem is that if he knows what he is talking about, he is making mistakes that even barely knowledgeable idiots shouldn’t make:
How can an expert in the Middle East make such an incredibly stupid comment? A) The WTC attack was conceived well before the Sharon came to power and well before the Temple Mount incident (and the fact that we have to call showing up at the Jews only really holy site an ‘incident’ only shows how wacked out the whole thing is). After making a ridiculous conclusory comment, the alleged Middle East expert then goes on to say that Osama bin Laden tried to speed up the timing of 9-11 in response to the Jenin attack (then characterized by the media as a massacre). This of course is ridiculous since the date of 9-11 is 9-11-2001 while the Jenin attack took place in 2002. Now I make mistakes all the time. But even in an area of non-expertise I wouldn’t have made that second mistake. But to make either in your alleged area of expertise is a bit shocking. It sounds almost as if he is fitting transforming his facts to fit the theory he likes.
And how can you not evaluate Cole skeptically if he is able to make 2 such dramatic errors in his area of expertise on such a critical question as what bin Laden’s motivations were?
If he identifies what they WERE with an impossibility why should we trust what he says they ARE?
Double plus ungood, you write: “So, in short – only knowledgeable and well-read bloggers should be held dogpiled for mistakes. Regular slobs with any two-bit opinion without anything to back it up are held to a different standard.”
Cole regularly makes appeals to authority, with himself as the authority. He is very dismissive of other opinions, usually without argument and by way of appeal to authority. Making such elementary mistakes makes you wonder why he thinks he is an authority (or it makes you wonder if he doesn’t have some graduate student write his blog).
But that does remind me of my favorite bumper sticker: “Question Authority…. Ask Me Anything”.
Sebastian is right–“elementary mistakes” are a problem. But, you know, they seem to pop up lots of places these days. So, for example, von’s incredulous and embarrassing enthusiasm for Lindgren’s preposterous post over at Volokh only yesterday–which cursory fact checking (of the kind Sebastian seems to be recommending here) would have avoided. So will we be dropping von, then? And as for comments about “appeals to authority”–does anyone on this blog read Charles’ stuff regularly? Or even at all? When did this blog start moving away from interesting and useful discussion, and into pointless generalizing and insult? Unfortunately, when Charles signed on. Pity. It was fun there for a while.
Sebastian: Making such elementary mistakes makes you wonder why he thinks he is an authority (or it makes you wonder if he doesn’t have some graduate student write his blog).
I can’t speak about why he may think he’s an authority, other than his education. Me, I treat him as an authority because he’s been extremely accurate in many of his predictions about how things would unfold in Iraq. Compared to those who predicted otherwise (and who seem almost compulsive in thier attacks on the man) he’s been positively clarvoiant.
Regarding an occasional blogged mistake, well, I thinks some bloggers need to get over it, especially those who don’t read his blog but seem to regard themselves in experts on it. With the volume of information flowing from Cole, I’m surprised there aren’t even more errors. And if the same critical eye were focussed on other bloggers with a similar tone (say the Powerline guys and their biweekly screams of “It’s a fake! Oh wait, maybe not”) I’d be more likely to be charitable to this kind of largely partisan attack.
Peter King
“And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they’re the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove.”
When high Republican officials, supposedly “moderate”, are advocating the mass execution of named independent journalists on national television, we are far beyond talking of “boondoggles”.
Republicans in the thread may counter by: claiming Peter King is an extremist nutcase;finding Democratic congressman who have also talked of executing Republicans;in the same serious tone of voice, talk of physically attacking a named poster or commenter as way of showing how funny this is.
(Crossposted from previous thread. If Tim Russert has reason to fear for his life, Gilliard and Cole should already be in Canada.)
“So, for example, von’s incredulous and embarrassing enthusiasm for Lindgren’s preposterous post over at Volokh only yesterday–which cursory fact checking (of the kind Sebastian seems to be recommending here) would have avoided.”
A Middle East expert shouldn’t need to “fact-check” to know that the Jenin assault took place after 9-11. He should be aware of that fact already. He shouldn’t have to “fact-check” to know that the planning for 9-11 began before Sharon came to power. Anyone who has remotely been paying attention to the Middle East should be aware of that. It makes the error look more like an ideologically driven re-write of history (perhpas in his mind) than an oops.
What kind of fact checking are you talking about. If you don’t have access to the underlying source material what can you do when a major newspaper writes Iraq when it should have written Iraq. Von clearly and quickly corrected by refering to an update. Cole just throws it down the memory hole with little or no comment. Cole made an error that he should have known was an error all along. Von relied on a newspaper report. Funny how when you look at the underlying facts instead of spouting whiney generalities your case falls apart.
I treat him as an authority because he’s been extremely accurate in many of his predictions about how things would unfold in Iraq.
Likewise. Most of the attacks on Cole relate to his views on Israel and his quarrels with Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer etc. But the key to his success on Iraq is the fact that the Shiites are his special field. He knew how crucial Sistani’s stance would be and he had a far better idea of how the Sadrists would behave than Bremmer and Co.
A Middle East expert shouldn’t need to “fact-check” to know that the Jenin assault took place after 9-11.
Says who? I’m an expert in C++ with fifteen years of daily experience, and I still need to refer to manuals on a regular basis.
People make occasional mistakes, and Cole made a published one. One can either acknowledege that these things ghappen to all of us, or eagerly use it as a cheap hammer on their reputation for partisan reasons.
As Charles has made a few of his own published gaffes in the past, I wonder about the wisdom of using that strategy. His own reputation may end up suffer.
Speaking of mistakes, “ghappen” == “happen” in my post above.
“I’m an expert in C++ with fifteen years of daily experience, and I still need to refer to manuals on a regular basis.”
On what an ‘object’ is?
So, for example, von’s incredulous and embarrassing enthusiasm for Lindgren’s preposterous post
credulous
On what an ‘object’ is?
That would be equivalent to locating Israel on a map, Sebastian. Precedence of operators might be closer to the timing of the Jenin incident. Or possibly the const pointer const issue.
So you really didn’t need a manual to quickly identify a better example.
I guess we all agree, neither should Cole in such a simple instance
I think you evaluate sources’ credibility and reliability based primarily, if not only, on whether they agree with you.
It doesn’t matter whether I agree with Kramer/Hadran or not, Katherine. Kramer busted Cole on the facts, and so did Hadran. Doesn’t matter how big his CV is or how many languages he speaks, Cole let his ideology trump the facts, and his judgment has been abysmal.
Charles, will you apologize for passing these inaccuracies?
CS, Kramer mentioned those very references on bin Laden and Sharon in his post: “The election of Ehud Barak as Israeli prime minister in May 1999 didn’t put a crimp in the planning. To the contrary: preparations proceeded apace, and Bin Laden pushed even harder for the operation, which wasn’t quite ready. Bin Laden did so again after Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. But that visit took place on September 28, 2000, when Sharon was leader of the opposition. He only became prime minister five months later.”
Cole was trying to support the notion that Sharon’s “iron fist” was “in some large part” responsible for the conception of 9/11. That notion was provably false. The conversations between KSM and OBL dealt with the timing of plans that were already conceived way back in 1999 and well before Sharon was elected. If Sharon was such a hot issue, why this (also on page 250): “According to him [KSM], bin Laden wanted the wanted the operation carried out on May 12, 2001, seven months to the day after the Cole bombing. KSM adds that the 9/11 attacks had originally been envisioned for May 2001.” If Sharon was the cause of OBL’s ire, why did bin Laden want to attack on the anniversary of a previous attack on an American target? Seems to me that Sharon was a matter of convenient timing for OBL, not a reason for the conception and execution of 9/11.
“What kind of fact checking are you talking about. If you don’t have access to the underlying source material what can you do when a major newspaper writes Iraq when it should have written Iraq (sic).”
Well, call me suspicious, but any piece that relies on Powerline, the Wall Street Journal, and the Post for its factual assumptions is one that I would think would require a bit more scrutiny than what this one received.
“Von clearly and quickly corrected by refering to an update.”
Von made ONE correction on a mistake that never should have been made in the first place, since the Post reference in question shows the correction. Other errors (particularly the canard one Wilson dissembling about his wife) remain unchanged.
“Cole made an error that he should have known was an error all along. Von relied on a newspaper report. ”
No, von relied on an unbalanced, biased account that, given its paucity of sources and the nature of those sources, he should have been more cautious about.
“Funny how when you look at the underlying facts instead of spouting whiney generalities your case falls apart.”
Boy, you’ve lost me here, somewhere around the comment about whiney generalities. The whole issue is about underlying facts, and having respect for them, which means, occassionally, actually seeking them out. And being consistent in our views of those who don’t. Or won’t.
No, that’s probably too much to ask.
1. Jenin, April 2001: cite.
2. “Conception” can mean “understanding.” If OBL wanted to move up the attacks for Sharon’s visit (per the text), that would seem to indicate (per the text) that there was already something to move up. Which means (per the text), the attacks had already been planned.
But other than the facts, it’s a good argument.
F**k. I’m an idiot. The link bears Sebastian out. Live by the anger, die by the anger.
I suspect you mean 2002, which by the way is the difference between a typo error and a timeline error.
Jenin, April 2001: cite.
Tim, your own link states that the date of Israeli withdrawal from Jenin was April 2002. Wikipedia confirms that the Battle of Jenin occurred in April 2002.
As for your conception idea, the “baby” was conceived in 1999 by KSM and OBL. Sharon came into the picture when they were talking about the baby’s delivery. The 9/11 Report was pretty clear on that.
But other than the “facts”, it was a good argument.
Sebastian,
IIRC, there were a series of crackdowns on Palestinian refugee camps, starting around the Spring of 2001. (And, of course, there had been actions against the camps prior to this, but this sequence seemed to have an added vehemence.) Cole had a braino and misplaced the Jenin crackdown in the overall sequence of such actions. It’s a pretty sloppy error on his part, but to claim that such an error in a blog post completely discredits his scholarship is stretching things a bit thin…
Charles,
Cole was talking about the potential influence of Sharon’s visit on the timing of the 9/11 attack, not on the attack’s genesis. This was clear to me in his original post, but he has since added a clarifying note.
It’s a pretty sloppy error on his part, but to claim that such an error in a blog post completely discredits his scholarship is stretching things a bit thin…
Absolutely. Especially since Cole has consistently and accurately reported on the various factions and political forces within Iraq for over two years now.
That may be the real sin in some of his attacker’s eyes. He’s been right a lot more than they have about Iraq. By a magnitude, and that probably stings a bit.
“According to the September 11 Commission report, al-Qaeda conceived 9/11 in some large part as a punishment on the US for supporting Ariel Sharon’s iron fist policies toward the Palestinians. ”
That isn’t an issue of moving the time of the attack around unless ‘conceived’ takes on a whole new meaning. That is why it fits so well with the Jenin mistake–in both cases Cole has convinced himself that it is largely about Israel and unfairness to the Palestinians and the facts get redated in his mind to fit that. In reality 9/11 was being planned at the time when the Prime Minister of Israel was trying very hard to settle with Arafat and give the Palestinians a state. But that doesn’t fit with Cole’s theory of Islamist terrorism.
Saying that Christopher Columbus came to America in 1942 is a typo. Saying that he led the English to America and helped Great Britain destroy the Incas is not the type of mistake that anyone with moderate history knowledge should make–an certainly no expert in South American history would ever make it.
Cole’s misstatement of facts is closer to a gaffe.
Sebastian, if, as you have repeatly stated, Cole has made errors that an expert in the Middle East should not have made, are you then of the mind that he is not an expert?
If not, what are you saying?
If you are, to what do you attribute the great number of things that he has been correct about?
Funny, from my reading of Cole he seems to be often wrong in his assessments.
Cole was talking about the potential influence of Sharon’s visit on the timing of the 9/11 attack, not on the attack’s genesis.
If that were true, why did Cole write this: “According to the September 11 Commission report, al-Qaeda conceived 9/11 in some large part as a punishment on the US for supporting Ariel Sharon’s iron fist policies toward the Palestinians.”
It just doesn’t wash, modus. The 9/11 Report clearly showed that the attacks were conceived in 1999, well before Sharon had his “iron fist”. Jenin was even more inexcusable. This is Cole’s life’s work. He should living and breathing this very basic stuff.
Maybe, we could start here:
Isn’t he the guy who said the 1997 Iranian elections were much more democratic?
Or here:
“Cole then writes, “Iraq never has been as close as two decades from having nuclear weapons.” ”
Iraq the Model has also schooled him on some history lessons with respect to Fallujah.
The list goes on an on…
dpu, I can’t speak for Sebastian (and probably shouldn’t try), but what I think is being called into question is not Cole’s expertise, but his authority. Some on the left, no experts themselves, will point to a pronouncement of his as if it were the last word on a given topic pertaining to the ME; so pointing out his elementary mistakes (and apparently his lack of forthrightness about acknowledging them) is perhaps a good way to remind people that though he may be a good source of information in general, he’s not the unassailable source of all wisdom regarding the ME.
CB,
It’s not just Cole that is having a tough week. The left in general is having a crappy week.
In the beginning of the week many on the left were certain Rove had committed treason. Now it looks like Rove didn’t do anything at all and those screaming for his head earlier in the week look more stupid/childish/shrill than they did before.
Honestly, I feel sorry for them.
your sympathy just oozes from every pore, doesn’t it.
feh.
he’s not the unassailable source of all wisdom regarding the ME.
Seriously, who is? The language barrier, and the ideological positions that people bring into the discussion and the sheer length of history under discussion prevent anyone from being an unassailable source. That’s why the regulars here seem to have a self imposed moratorium on Israeli-Palestinian issues and when one does break out, several people (me included) tend to slowly back up out of the room.
And if this thread turned into one about what constitutes expertise and authority on this particular subject (or more generally any particular subject), we really would have turned a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Unless the purpose is to strew pig parts around to get back at the terrorists.
Charles,
Sharon is called the father of the settlement movement for a
reason. Even before he was prime minister, he exercised considerable
influence in the Israeli government. He began advocating for increased settlment in the early 1980s.
After all, regardless of who was
prime minister before Sharon, the Israeli goverment adopted Sharon’s
settlement policies. After Oslo, settlement expansion increased dramatically every year, regardless of the nature of the particular Israeli government in power. Although Americans ignored the settlement growth it was widely reported in the middle east.
My point here is that Sharon’s visit to the temple mount may have been significant in choosing the timing of the attacks, but his more general association with the settlement movement certainly motivated OBL in his desire to attack the US. The 9/11 report indicates that as well.
I personally don’t find Juan Cole to be particularly balanced on the Palestinian issue, but his insight into the Arab world is invaluable, and that includes his insights into how the Palestinian issue feeds into Arab opinion.
If one of you guys can suggest someone with a less-tainted view of Israel/Palestinian relations with actual insight into the Arab side of the issue and its place in the broader world of Arab politics, I’m all ears.
I should make it clear, I think Cole has a blind spot you could drive a truck through about Israel and the Palestianians, and I tend to take what he writes on that subject with shakers of salt, and at times I find it actually offensive–if that were all he wrote I probably wouldn’t bother reading him. That was a pretty big error. Nevertheless, I have certainly learned a fair bit from reading him; he is very opinionated but does know his stuff.
My point here is that Sharon’s visit to the temple mount may have been significant in choosing the timing of the attacks, but his more general association with the settlement movement certainly motivated OBL in his desire to attack the US. The 9/11 report indicates that as well.
CS, if you want to know what OBL’s motivations were, just take a look at his 1998 fatwa. There is no mention of Sharon or settlements, only a few general references to the “crusader-Zionist alliance”. Most of OBL’s rage is directed at the US presence in the “Peninsula” and Iraq. You’re taking a tiny slice out of the 9/11 Report, which deals with timing and not conception, and making it into something that is not.
Go to page 51 of the 9/11 Report. Israel is but one of several in their litany as to why they attacked us. On page 55, bin Laden wanted to go after the “head of the snake”. On page 56, look at bin Laden’s conflict with Azzam.
Cole’s error on Jenin was boneheaded and like most boneheaded errors, it went in the direction you’d predict given his political views. It’s equally predictable that people who despise Cole for his views will leap on a mistake like this. It’s a lot easier than it would be to explain why Cole is wrong to regard Sharon as a mass murderer whose crimes are used as an excuse for Muslim acts of mass murder. In fact, Osama did recently claim that Sharon’s bombing of Beirut in 1982 (which killed thousands of civilians) was an inspiration for 9/11. Sharon’s career puts one of many kinks into Western proclamations that nothing justifies terrorism if a typical Western democracy elects a known war criminal as their Prime Minister.
If there’s a self-imposed moratorium on the Israel/Palestine issue, it doesn’t seem to prevent people from slipping their views on the subject into posts ostensibly about other things. Speaking of which, the “whacked out” thing about Sharon on the Temple Mount is that he should have been spending the last 50 years in jail for his first war crime at Qibya, which would have kept him from further such exploits.
Sebastian also pointed out that Jenin wasn’t a massacre. No, not of hundreds, but according to Human Rights Watch there were major war crimes committed there.
We now return to our moratorium on any discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues, except of course for constant references to Palestinian suicide bombers and the need for Palestinian Muslims and Muslims in general to stop making excuses for the killers in their midst.
Boy, that Cole error about Jenin sure was dumb. Guess we don’t have to listen to anything he says.
If there’s a self-imposed moratorium on the Israel/Palestine issue, it doesn’t seem to prevent people from slipping their views on the subject into posts ostensibly about other things.
Oh, definitely, but when these thread break out, I think the definitive response was crafted by bob mcmanus, who said that whenever an I/P topic surfaces, he would post “I remain skeptical, but optimistic.”
BTW, there may not be any reason to believe what Osama says about how the bombing of Beirut led him to conceive of 9/11. But he probably knows his audience.
Unfortunately I think the opinion expressed by Benjamin Schwarz in (I believe) the May issue of the Atlantic is more plausible–both sides are right about their grievances and both sides are wrong in their claims of innocence and there’s no reason to be optimistic.
I don’t see any reason whatsoever to be optimistic except for the fact that Arafat is dead.
Charles:
1998 fatwa:
I can’t say my respect for Charles’ reading comprehension is particularly high.
Seriously, though, I can’t understand this weird denial among America’s right wing. The fact is that Israeli policy and US support for it is and has long been one of the stated grievances of Al Qaeda. You can say they’re lying, you can say they’re not lying but our policy toward Israel shouldn’t be changed, but you really CAN’T say Al Qaeda hasn’t said what it said.
“bob mcmanus, who said that whenever an I/P topic surfaces, he would post “I remain skeptical, but optimistic.”
Misquotated most heiniously, with slanderous
implications about my nature.
It was, of course: “Skeptical and pessimistic“. There will likely be fifty years of peace and prosperity in I/P before I accept its possibility. I look forward to being proved wrong about I/P, and seeing my 104th birthday.
“I don’t see any reason whatsoever to be optimistic except for the fact that Arafat is dead.”
Does not make me optimistic. Arafat was, as far as we can tell, fairly ineffective at coordinating and controlling all the factions, but he had some power that way,used mostly maliciously. Arafat might have been to negotiate a deal; unlikely, but possible. I no longer see that possibility.
Nor for that matter, do I see much likelihood of anything approaching consensus being available on the Israeli side after Sharon leaves the stage. Centrifugal forces define our age.
Now, OTOH, Arafat’s death was reason for a short celebration.
I was aware of Palestine since Black September, Munich, Achille Lauro, fomenting the Lebanese Civil War, asassinating the Jordanian Prime Minister, etc. How many Israeli PMs were elected while Arafat was in control? Meir, Begin, Dayan, Rabin, Shamir, Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon? And none of them was able to reach some sort of agreement. Well, call me cold hearted but I don’t like the PLO or PA, even a little bit. If they ever treat Jews half as decently as Israelis treat Muslim, Druze, or Bahai citizens of Israel, I might be disposed to think a little more charitably about the Palestinian cause. Show me a little something. Make Jewish settlers full citizens of Palestine, with full rights and protections, and then maybe I’ll change my mind.
We notice that this evening, Juan thinks that 160,000/100 = 160. A bad week indeed.
It’s always amusing to see the effect which Charles’s quite mild observations have upon the wasp’s nest of commenters here. They is no introspective ability at all.
My abject apologies, Bob, I guess it’s just Charles’ mild observations that has me buzzing like a wasp’s nest (there”s a Homeric allusion, book 7?) I’m just wondering if we need a strategic reserve of pig lard or something like that. Again, most humble apologies.
And none of them was able to reach some sort of agreement.
Which offered the return of East Jerusalem?
Make Jewish settlers full citizens of Palestine, with full rights and protections, and then maybe I’ll change my mind.
The settlers were moved to the WB to prevent the creation of a PS, or the return of East Jerusalem. This works because they can’t possibly be left behind by Israel, accountable to their Palestinian neighbors for such things as taking land, water, etc.
I’m not particularly optimistic. The Gaza pullout will exhaust Israeli society for a long time, dampening the will to remove even those WB settlements outside the Wall. Settlements inside the Wall will only be removed by force, and force of a kind there will be until they are removed.
(If the Wall had been built on the international boundary, I would think it an effective strategy. You’d still have a minority opposed to Israel, but it would shrink, and you’d still have some kind of Return/Reparations issue, but it could be finessed. Including settlements within the Wall, though, makes it completely and utterly ineffective as a strategy, however useful it might be tactically.)
Cole would increase his credibility if he acknowledged error more frequently and simply wrote less. Unfortunately on Iraq his gloomy blog has been right more than wrong.
What’s really valuable are his digested views on the what the Arabic press is saying.
Sebastian also pointed out that Jenin wasn’t a massacre. No, not of hundreds, but according to Human Rights Watch there were major war crimes committed there.
I’m not going to argue about Sharon and his responsibility for Sabra and Shatila, Donald, but HRW did not claim that major war crimes took place in Jenin. They said there was prima facie evidence, and there were two incidents where Palestinians were killed in custody. Time has a good investigative report.
I can’t say my respect for Charles’ reading comprehension is particularly high.
The fatwa mentions the occupation of Jerusalem, not settlements, grh. I’m not saying that OBL did not cite Israel as a reason for 9/11. The point is that I dispute Cole’s “in some large part” assertion for the conception of the attacks. Israel was indeed listed as a reason, but it was one of a litany. What really animated OBL to action was US presence in the “Peninsula” and Iraq. The 9/11 Report was pretty clear on that.
CB:
The point is that I dispute Cole’s “in some large part” assertion for the conception of the attacks.
This seems a fair criticism, but it seems the only meaningful one in contrast with a lot of good raw reporting of data.
So what merits this type of nonsensical hyperbole other than your own prejudices?
he’s so blindered and shackled to his ideology that he’s prone to whopping mistakes and misjudgments.
So what merits this type of nonsensical hyperbole other than your own prejudices?
Because he’s made such whopping mistakes and misjudgments, dm, it’s apparent that Cole has a huge blind spot. How can it be otherwise when a guy like Cole adheres to the ILoG.
Unfortunately on Iraq his gloomy blog has been right more than wrong.
Isn’t Shi’ite Iraq the specific area of Cole’s expertise? I rely on Cole’s parsing of the different political parties’ ideology and power within internal Iraqi disputes. He was one of the first to emphasize the role of al-Sistani–and to insist that al-Sistani was the person to negotiate with in order to salvage some order in the country. This Iraq-specific analysis, with the Arab news digests, is more than valuable enough to continue reading his blog.
Via Hilzoy:
“OK: I am off on vacation, theoretically, but: No Personal Attacks. Read The Rules.”
I think Hilzoy meant to cross post this comment over here.
Unless of course, personal attacks against Charles Bird are okay. Maybe, you guys should add that to your posting rules just so visitors know that some personal attacks are okay.
So what merits this type of nonsensical hyperbole other than your own prejudices?
Because he’s made such whopping mistakes and misjudgments
Then do your job as a competent poster and list them, rather than hyperbole and a lack of substance to your accusation.
Again, there is very little substance to your post on this point — “whopping mistakes and misjudgments.” And having read Cole a lot over the years, he provides lots of valuable information as well as his opinions which you can take or leave as you want. Most of the time they are not jumbled together (the greatest flaw in your writing), and because he is very up front about his point of view, you also are not likely to be misled.
He clearly has a higher standard in posting than your work.
He clearly has a higher standard in posting than your work.
Do I take it from this statement that you believe CB indeed makes some effort toward adhering to a standard in his work?
Has anyone checked blogme’s IP address?
Charles:
Israel was number three on a list of three grievances. Bin Laden wanted the timing moved up because of Sharon’s actions. Those are basic facts.
The rest is just a silly parsing of what it means for something to be “some large part” of the reason for something else. Is it reasonable to call 1/3 of something some large part? Anyone who isn’t blinded by ideology would say yes.
Also — the next time you’re in Jerusalem, you might want to check out the settlements there.
Could you perhaps point out specific personal attacks you’re talking about, blogme? I assume you have some examples of comments about CB that are worse than those you yourself make about other commenters.
Grh, you are having trouble with the word ‘conception’ in Cole’s passage. Al Qaeda could not have conceived of 9-11 as punishment for Sharon’s actions at the Temple Mount or his later actions as prime minister because Al Qaeda had already begun planning 9-11 at that point. It could not have tried to move the timeline up in response to the well publicized but ultimately false Jenin massacre because that took place in 2002 while 9-11-2001 took place in, well 2001.
I also note that in the fatwa in question OBL believes that the main reason to attack Iraq is to distract attention from Israel in Jerusalem by humiliating Muslim neighbors.
To be clear that is the main reason to attack Iraq in the 1990s.
Sebastian,
You’re certainly right that the Jenin reference by Cole is an embarrassing mistake. He should be suitably chastened.
However, this sentence of Cole’s:
is perfectly reasonable. “Conceive” has several difference meanings. One is “to become pregnant.” One is “to devise.” And another is “to understand,” which is clearly the way Cole was using it here. Really, that should be obvious, unless people are being purposely tendentious.
Phil,
“Has anyone checked blogme’s IP address?”
Are you upset that I think personal attacks against CB are not okay?
I’m not sure how my Ip address is relevant to that.
bob m,
“Young liberals this week flocked to the nation’s capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strategist Paul Begala accuse Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich”
Bob, do you condemn this rhetoric also?
Are you upset that I think personal attacks against CB are not okay?
Don’t lose any sleep worrying that I care what you think.
I’m not sure how my Ip address is relevant to that.
I’m sure you don’t.
Sebastian Holsclaw writes:
Mr. Cole actually corrected the Sharon bit as follows:
Satisfied now?
BTW, if you have actually visited Jerusalem and if you have actually read about the Temple Mount incident, you’d know that the place where Mr. Sharon went wasn’t ‘the Jews only really holy site’ as you put it, but a site of Al-Aqsa mosque; the Jewish holy site nearby (one of them anyway) is the so called ‘Wailing Wall’, he could’ve gone there any time without any controversy whatsoever. Incidentally, Mr. Sharon didn’t come to the al-Aqsa site alone, he marched there accompanied by 1000 military police – yes, 1000 military police. Was it wacked out or what?
PS. I can’t find any reference to Jenin on Cole’s site, is your quote real?
Thanks.
Actually, I might be guilty of an understatement here; according to this Avnery’s piece there were between 1,000 and 2,000 police officers accompanying Mr. Sharon (and what Mr. Anvery calls ‘the band of provocateurs’) to the compound of the mosques.
Sebastian Holsclaw writes:
How can an expert in the Middle East make such an incredibly stupid comment? A) The WTC attack was conceived well before the Sharon came to power and well before the Temple Mount incident (and the fact that we have to call showing up at the Jews only really holy site an ‘incident’ only shows how wacked out the whole thing is
How ironic — making this wacked out comment as rebuttal.
Unfortunately for the Jews, the entire top of the Mount is the third holiest site in Islam and occupied by the Al-Aqsa mosque. Nor can the Jews claim Islam as somehow responsible for this circumstance since the Temple was long gone when Islam showed up.
One of the flash points in Israeli-Palestinian relations is the continual agitation by Jewish groups to evict the Al-Aqsa mosque from “their” holy site. This dispute encampsulates so much of the conflict — Israelis expelling Arabs from their homes and lands, and now their holy places. The “incident” by Sharon was the most deliberate of provocations, and in furtherance of this Jewish belligerence.
Inform yourself.
He clearly has a higher standard in posting than your work.
Do I take it from this statement that you believe CB indeed makes some effort toward adhering to a standard in his work?
Actually, I clearly think that he does, and he laboriously assembles links and other information — it has to be time consuming. That he then revels in snark as fact is frustrating. Maybe its an attempt at “humor,” but its more in the nature of eye-poking.
Abb1, Cole pushed the Jenin incident down the memory hole, but you can still find it in Google cache.
“BTW, if you have actually visited Jerusalem and if you have actually read about the Temple Mount incident, you’d know that the place where Mr. Sharon went wasn’t ‘the Jews only really holy site’ as you put it, but a site of Al-Aqsa mosque; the Jewish holy site nearby (one of them anyway) is the so called ‘Wailing Wall’, he could’ve gone there any time without any controversy whatsoever.”
Argh, that is so not correct. A) Muslims claim control over the Wailing Wall and there have been clashes over it for more than 150 years.
B) Yes the Temple Mount is a Muslim holy site but it is pretty much the only holy site for the Jews. There have been repeated attempts to bar Jews from both the Wailing Wall and the Mount proper.
Sharon going there, once again absolutely could not have provided the reason for 9/11 since going there took place after the planning had already begun. Moving the time back and forth is irrelevant (at least to me), the decision TO attempt to murder 30,000 civilians in the WTC while they were at work is the dangerous decision.
The reason Cole made both of those blatant errors was to fit with his theory that the Israel issue was much more important to Al Qaeda at the time of the planning than it really was. His reasons for wanting to stick it to the Jews are not something I’m going to try to speculate on. But suffice to say that Israel was not the major concern of Al Qaeda before 9-11. Cole wants it to be, and his errors would have (if they are believed by readers of his site) made his thesis look plausible.
His reasons for wanting to stick it to the Jews are not something I’m going to try to speculate on.
Look, Sebastian — if you want to call Cole anti-Semitic, then just come out and say so. Obviously that’s what you think, or you wouldn’t talk about Cole and “the Jews.” I think that’s extremely gross and a insult to actual victims of anti-Semitism, but at least have the courage of your convictions.
suffice to say that Israel was not the major concern of Al Qaeda before 9-11.
It was ONE OF the major concerns, as anyone can see who has eyes to read. And Cole has never claimed otherwise.
I’m not sure what you mean by “attempts to bar Jews from both the Wailing Wall and the Mount proper”. All of it has been under Israeli control since 1967. I’ve been there. The Wailing Wall is the place where religious Jews go to pray, the idea that they can be banned from there is absurd. The ‘Temple Mount’ area above is usually open for tourists, but it’s absolutely not a place where Jews congregate. He simply went there to show who’s the boss, to provoke a bloodshed, to start a confrontation and, of course, to break Taba negotiations. There’s no conceivable innocent reason.
I can’t find a cached version of this page with Jenin in it. Anything is possible, of course.
I can’t find a cached version of this page with Jenin in it. Anything is possible, of course.
Check out Kramer’s articles – see the links in CB’s post? It does look as if Cole screwed up and then tried to cover his tracks. He’s a valuable commentator but he does things like that sometimes.
This is what Kramer saved:
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Documents/ColeLondon.htm
“The Wailing Wall is the place where religious Jews go to pray, the idea that they can be banned from there is absurd.”
You need to engage in some basic history then.
A) clashes about the wailing wall have been going on for more than 100 years.
B) Muslims repeatedly tried to get the British to ban Jews from the Wailing Wall
C) From 1948-1967 Jews were denied access to the wall and buildings were constructed in front of the exposed portions
D) There are still instances of Muslims throwing rocks (of the size that can kill people)down at Jews from on top of the Muslim controlled Temple Mount.
Grh, you write “It was ONE OF the major concerns, as anyone can see who has eyes to read. And Cole has never claimed otherwise.”
That isn’t correct. Cole has used a major thesis that the existance of Israel is THE major reason for Muslim attacks against the US.
Personally I believe that if there had been no troops in Saudi Arabia and Palestine had been its own state, bin Laden would still have attacked the US. His war is with the West and its corrupting influence on Muslim youth. That influence exists independent of troops in Saudi Arabia and Israel’s existance.
And yes I also strongly suspect that Cole is anti-Semitic, but did not want to this to become a pissing match about exactly how much going overboard on Israel can also be anti-Semitic when Cole’s other prejudices can be dealt with without getting into that. I do not need to resort to inneundo, I am stating that Cole lets his prejudices greatly color his outlook. But I am not even talking about his anti-Semitic prejudices.
Charles, if you google “Human Rights Watch Jenin” you’ll find a fair amount of material. HRW said at least 52 Palestinians died in Jenin, of which 22 were civilians. Rockets were fired indiscriminately into Jenin, killing civilians, an old man in a wheelchair with a white flag attached was run down by an Israeli tank, a 37 year old paralytic was killed when a bulldozer destroyed his home (the Israelis refused pleas from family members to be allowed to get him out) and Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian nurse in her nurse’s uniform as she tried to reach a wounded man. Palestinian civilians were also used as human shields. If “the West” was serious in its moral condemnation of terrorism, this kind of thing wouldn’t be brushed over so lightly simply because the initial reports were exaggerated.
I’ve often wondered why Sabra and Shatila get so much of the attention when Sharon’s name comes up. It was horrific, but the actual perpetrators were Christian Lebanese (though Sharon knew what they were capable of when he let them into the camps. And incidentally, funny how Christian thugs in the Middle East seem to be as bad as the Muslim thugs when they have the opportunity. It’s almost as if the religion wasn’t the determining factor.) The bombing of Beirut killed more people–perhaps it’s more socially acceptable to drop bombs on apartment buildings than shoot people face-to-face or carry bombs onto buses. If one wants to talk about atrocities carried out at ground level, then Sharon was in command when his unit wiped out the Jordanese village in 1953. But Sabra and Shatila seem to be what most people think about when Sharon’s crimes are mentioned.
Sebastian:
his anti-Semitic prejudices…
All right. I think that’s disgusting and genuinely slanderous — there’s just as much evidence that you’re prejudiced against Muslims.
But that said, I appreciate you dispensing with the innuendo.
In any case, the Jenin reference aside, everything I’ve seen by Cole on this subject is either obviously true or a defensible interpretation of the facts. Why something so straightfoward is worth so many words is beyond me — unless, as I say, people are being purposely tendentious.
Cole has used a major thesis that the existance of Israel is THE major reason for Muslim attacks against the US.
Most informed observers opine that the Arab-Israeli conflict is at the root of Muslim anger against the West.
I also strongly suspect that Cole is anti-Semitic…
Based on what? Opposition to Israeli policies? Believe it or not, it is entirely possible to be strongly oppposed to Israel and not have a drop of anti-Semitism.
And let’s also be clear that saying the existence of Israel is a cause of Arab anger v. the West is not the same as saying Israel shouldn’t, thus, exist.
Reading through Cole’s archives, it’s clear he has an incredibly low opinion of the Likud Party, and laments the diminished influence of the Israeli centre-left.
I suggest that the major reason for attacks against the US is the existence of Saudi Arabia and other Arabic countries.
That sounds okay, right dmbeaster? Hopefully, no one will assume that I am anti-Arabic. I mean really this whole problem would go away if we could just get rid of all the Arabic states.
Hopefully, no one will assume that I am anti-Arabic.
No, we wouldn’t. Unless…
I mean really this whole problem would go away if we could just get rid of all the Arabic states.
…you begin advocating. As in here, with this sentence. Get the difference?
I’m sure you could provide a cite where Juan Cole advocates “getting rid” of Israel…
2shoes,
Are you so sure that wouldn’t be interpreted this as anti-Arabic. I doubt many Arabics would agree with you.
“I suggest that the major reason for attacks against the US is the existence of Saudi Arabia and other Arabic countries.”
What is the next logical statement that flows from that original comment?
That we should have a group hug and get along?
Your comments reminds me of the those who say, “I’m not racist, I just think black people should be kept separate.”
What is the next logical statement that flows from that original comment?
Oy…put words in people’s mouths much? Tsk tsk…that’s a no-no amongst grownups.
Description is not advocacy. So…as requested, put up or shut up.
Your comments reminds me of the those who say, “I’m not racist, I just think black people should be kept separate.”
While your comments remind me of a particular entry in the dictionary.
Well it’s difficult to put up or shut up with respect to something that I never claimed.
All I did was make a case that if one shows a pattern of particular comments people might consider that anti whatever.
But, maybe you could talk to a student who took his class. I think they even made a movie about it.
Your link to the definition of libel was clever. Now be more clever and show me where I said Cole was anti-semtic or for that matter even mentioned his name and anti-semitism in the same post.
“Bob, do you condemn this rhetoric also?” blogme, 3:22pm
blogme, may I suggest that you start attributing your quotations, if not with a link, then at least with a name?
Note that Begala wasn’t recommending violence against anyone, but complaining about threats against him and his family. I have no way of knowing whether such threats in service of tax cuts were actually made, although Begala should have attributed them. Of course, if threats are made against your family, some would go to the police first; others might act more directly.
In any case threats of violence against liberals are not that unusual, but I try to be fair and ignore the rhetoric of Coulter and Savage and Dobson. Nor was threats against Democrats or liberals the subject.
Representive Peter King, acting as designated point-man on the Rove defense, threatening journalists with death on national television, is another matter entirely.
LOL. Now I know you’re trolling.
“Believe it or not, it is entirely possible to be strongly oppposed to Israel and not have a drop of anti-Semitism.”
Yup, it is possible. But that has nothing to do with Cole.
2shoes,
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1945
I haven’t researched the information in here, but it is interesing. Especially at the end. Cole may not be anti-semitic as much as anti-Israel. One can never know what another truly thinks!
Bob,
It was just a question. I condemned the rhetoric of King.
So you don’t condemn this kind of rhetoric, also?
Just curious.
Oh good, now we’re citing Campus Watch.
FWIW, I think Cole has a bee in his bonnet about Sharon and Israel and US-Israel relations – or call it a mania – to the extent that I discount anything he says on the subject except references to specific facts; but I don’t believe he’s in any way an anti-Semite.
Powers that be,
How about an open thread? I’d love to see some discussion about Ron Moore and the origin of the new Battlestar Galactica talked about here
Yup, it is possible. But that has nothing to do with Cole.
And we keep waiting for you to explain yourself.
How about an open thread? I’d love to see some discussion about Ron Moore and the origin of the new Battlestar Galactica talked about here
I beg you to hold back that open thread until Monday evening, when I’ll finally get a chance to watch the S2 opener. No! Spoilers! 😀
Good piece on Israel – security fence, Gaza disengagement, etc.
And the author suggests a bunch of non-violent ways to end this disaster:
Those of you here who are against terrorism should support and try to facilitate these actions, because they are the only alternative to terrorism.
Believe it or not, it is entirely possible to be strongly oppposed to Israel and not have a drop of anti-Semitism.
Not according to Sharon:
I am not religious and people’s religion on the whole don’t matter to me (I might make an exception for sects like scientology) though I dislike fundamentalists on most issues, incl. religious ones. I critisize every government, including my own, and most definately the Israeli one. Appearantly that makes me antisemitic, which IMHO makes the word loose its meaning, not makes me into something bad.
abb1,
“In addition to these promising signs of an emerging non-violent political resistance movement,”
I’ll give the writer credit for having cajones. He better no let Hamas hear him say that.
I’ve got an even better plan for eliminating the security wall.
Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel.
“And yes I also strongly suspect that Cole is anti-Semitic, but did not want to this to become a pissing match about exactly how much going overboard on Israel can also be anti-Semitic when Cole’s other prejudices can be dealt with without getting into that. I do not need to resort to inneundo, I am stating that Cole lets his prejudices greatly color his outlook. But I am not even talking about his anti-Semitic prejudices. ”
Glad you don’t have to resort ot this kind of innuendo, but you do it anyway. You’re beyond the pale at his point. Bye!
Sebastian: And yes I also strongly suspect that Cole is anti-Semitic, but did not want to this to become a pissing match about exactly how much going overboard on Israel can also be anti-Semitic when Cole’s other prejudices can be dealt with without getting into that. I do not need to resort to inneundo, I am stating that Cole lets his prejudices greatly color his outlook.
Okay, that’s disturbing. Shame, Sebastian.
First of all, we ALL let our prejudices color our outlook. To suggest otherwise is foolish. Unless it’s Spock doing the talking.
Secondly, if you’re going to haul out the tattered anti-Semitic card, I think you really better have an ace up your sleeve. As in some quotes or links that might back that up. Otherwise it looks like a cheap and easy smear that I thought beneath you.
I’ve got an even better plan for eliminating the security wall.
Stop sending suicide bombers into Israel.
That might’ve been a good plan for eliminating a hypothetical ‘security’ wall built, hypothetically, along Israel’s internationally recognized border, but for the actual ‘land theft’ wall this plan will do nothing. And I’ll go out on the limb and add that in the absense of non-violent political/economic resistance it would do less then nothing, actually.
Considering how loosely Cole plays the anti-Muslim card, he is in no position to complain about people thinking that he might be anti-Semitic when all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
abb1,
And neither are moronic statements like this…
“”In addition to these promising signs of an emerging non-violent political resistance movement,””
while suicide bombings are still taking place inside Israel.
” ‘land theft’ ”
Seems like they shouldn’t have gone to war with Israel. They might still have their land. Or maybe like Egypt they could negotiate a peace and get land back. But, no. They are going the suicide bombing route.
Considering how loosely Cole plays the anti-Muslim card, he is in no position to complain about people thinking that he might be anti-Semitic when all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
Can you cite a piece by Cole where he advocates suicide bombings? Because I’m not seeing it.
I have to agree, this is quite unwarranted. Indeed libelous, Sebastien.
Considering how loosely Cole plays the anti-Muslim card, he is in no position to complain about people thinking that he might be anti-Semitic when all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
Is Cole posting here? Is he the one asking you to substantiate your innuendo?
Considering how loosely Cole plays the anti-Muslim card, he is in no position to complain about people thinking that he might be anti-Semitic when all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
As Cole has both repeatedly stated his support for Israel’s right to exist in safety and has condemned suicide bombers as “serial killers”, I’d say that you have no idea what you’re talking about, Sebastian.
Your reputation has just significanty degenerated in my opinion. Sadly.
blogme,
I don’t understand what exactly you find ‘moronic’ about the phrase “In addition to these promising signs of an emerging non-violent political resistance movement,”
Also, ‘they’ haven’t gone to war with Israel. Most of ‘they’ were born after 1967 when their territory was occupied by Israel.
Incidentally, in 1967 those who were ‘they’ at that time didn’t go to war with Israel – Israel started the ‘six day war’ by attacking Egypt.
Moreover, after 1967 Israel was refusing to negotiate a peace with Egypt until 1973 Yom Kippur war, which demostrated that territorial expansion to Sinai comes with a high price. Similarly, Israel left Lebanon not because of any peace negotiations but only due to Hezbollah efforts.
So, the body of empirical evidence seems to suggest that inflicting pain – not peace negotiations – is the way to go. The only question is: is this pain going to be non-violent – political and economic – or violent, in the form of terrorist attacks.
That’s how I see it anyway.
all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
Wow. That’s just not true, Sebastian. Stick an “only” between “for” and “Jews” and you might have something, but as written, it’s a lie.
when all of his writing leads to the conclusion that the only way to end the long term War on Terrrorism involves the end of Israel as a place for Jews.
WTF? Please cite.
The less said about Sebastian’s comment the better. Using the anti-Semite tag like that drains it of all meaning. Anyone who is interested in Cole’s views on Israel will get a pretty good idea from this reply to a post by Matthew Yglesias. He certainly isn’t calling for the destruction of Israel.
Incidentally, in 1967 those who were ‘they’ at that time didn’t go to war with Israel – Israel started the ‘six day war’ by attacking Egypt.
Formally true, but not the whole story. Egypt had re-militarized the Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded an Israeli port. Egypt’s troops were massing on the border, and Syria had recently executed a mutual support treaty with Egypt that would have obligated Syria to invade if Egypt did. (cite.) Israel had every reason to believe an Egyptian invasion was imminent. But, undeniably, it was Israel that broke the peace and struck first. To the extent that your recitation of the facts seeks to absolve the Arab nations of any shared responsibility for the 1967 war, it is false. If you did not intend this implication, I apologize.
Are you confident that your arvhives do not contain ‘whopping mistakes and misjudgments?’
If “the West” was serious in its moral condemnation of terrorism, this kind of thing wouldn’t be brushed over so lightly simply because the initial reports were exaggerated.
I’m not disputing that the IDF did some or all of those things, Donald. Not to get into a moral tit for tat, but the Palestinians did far worse, which probably explains why the Israelis didn’t get criticized as hard as they might have. That, and because so many blew their credibility by claiming a massacre took place.
Those of you here who are against terrorism should support and try to facilitate these actions, because they are the only alternative to terrorism.
I wouldn’t rely on a fringie communist publication for providing the “only alternative to terrorism”, abbi. Right off the bat, Rubin’s on shaky ground by comparing the Israeli security barrier to the Berlin Wall. Also, most of the barrier is fencing, not solid wall. He writes as if Israel had no reason whatsoever for building the thing–a thing which happens to be working–and he ignores the Palestinians’ responsibility. If there were no terrorist attacks by Palestinian terrorists, there would have been no need for the security barrier.
Rubin’s on shaky ground by comparing the Israeli security barrier to the Berlin Wall.
Why?
Also, most of the barrier is fencing, not solid wall.
So? So was the East German border…
He writes as if Israel had no reason whatsoever for building the thing–a thing which happens to be working
It’s also working to destroy the Palestinian economy, such as there is…
If there were no terrorist attacks by Palestinian terrorists, there would have been no need for the security barrier.
And I’m sure a Palestinian would respond “if there was no occupation there would be no terrorist attacks.”
And so it goes, round and round and round.
“I don’t understand what exactly you find ‘moronic’ about the phrase “In addition to these promising signs of an emerging non-violent political resistance movement,”
This is why that statement is moronic… it ignores the reality on the ground in Israel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Unless you think Israelis getting blown up by suicide bombers is an indication of a non-violent movement.
Blogme, you see a contradiction between ‘promising signs of an emerging non-violent political resistance movement’ and continuing violent resistance, is that it? Why can’t there be both?
St, Sheldon L. Richman in his “Ancient History” (which I consider a good and neutral source) describes the situation leading to the six day war in detail. Read it to understand the context.
About Nasser’s blocking the Strait of Tiran Richman says this:
I would agree that Nasser and the Soviets were partly responsible for deterioration of the political situation, but starting a war is a totally different matter. Either you do start a war or you don’t; Israel started the Six Day War, it’s as simple as that.
Sorry, here’s the link to Richman’s analysis: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
abb1,
“Why can’t there be both?”
Well it could, but there’s one minor detail that might be worth your attention:
These comments made last week don’t help either:
I’m not the one saying its not possible. It’s Hamas.
Not that I agree entirely with Sebastian on Cole, but I do think that it’s disturbing for an important scholar to take such an emotional, in my opinion irrational, view of a geopolitical situation of great import to what he studies, and unfortunate that that view parallels in some ways those of a group of people we all abhor. From an Occam’s Razor standpoint what Sebastian suggests is reasonable. I don’t agree with that analysis because this topic provokes such emotional reactions among otherwise reasonable people. Likewise, I know many reasonable people who would like to see a one-state solution, which in my view would lead to the end of Israel as a safe haven for the Jewish people. Depending on the degree to which one finds that thesis obviously true, one might reasonably question the judgement or informedness or motives of the one-staters. Just as one might about free-traders, or strong-statists, or one’s-favorite-budget-item cutters.
Re the 6-day war, it’s correct to say that Israel started it – but only in a Rovian, “I didn’t leak her name” sense.
I don’t see how Hamas can prevent people from opposing Israeli expansionism by non-violent means. Hamas is doing their thing, ICG is doing theirs, UN theirs, and so on. Emerging non-violent political resistance movement (if it indeed exists) does not depend on whatever Hamas does or doesn’t do.
Re the 6-day war, it’s correct to say that Israel started it – but only in a Rovian, “I didn’t leak her name” sense.
No, I can’t agree with this. I think it’s exactly the opposite. By a Rovian, “I didn’t leak her name” sense you could say that Israel doesn’t start the six day war. By all other sences the side whose military forces crossed the border and attacked the other side is the side that started the war.
abb1,
I guess we would have to talk to some of the Hamas members who have been known to kill some of their neighbors when they did things they didn’t like.
Stalker: “Officer, she tried to kill me!”
Officer: “Did you?”
Israel: “Yes, but he recently tried to kill me, and he’s been going around saying he’d try again soon, and got his friends to come circle around just beyond my property, and he cut the lines to get help, and if he did attack I would be completely vulnerable. As it happened, I managed to strike first when I decided no one would come rescue me, and threw my stalkers into confusion, and reclaimed my burial grounds that had been desecrated. And when I did so, I offered the people living in that area the land, but they were afraid of my stalkers and said no.”
abbi: “Officer, I was watching, and she attacked that guy without warning.”
Abb1 you are telling just about one quarter of the story with your outline of the Six Days War. There is always the famously right-wing pro-Israel BBC account which reminds us that on May 30 1967 Jordan and Egypt join in a Command Structure sharing agreement about which Nasser said: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.”
You neatly avoid talking about the Jodanian troops.
And who said anything about him supporting suicide bombers. It is his fantasy about policy-making: Let’s see (all bold is mine):
Quote 1
Yup the neo-cons don’t care about nuclear proliferation or terrorism, or even oil, they care about Sharon’s alleged ambitions for a greater Israel. Cole exhibits so serious timeline issues here, since neocons existed quite well before Sharon came to power, but who really cares about temporal unidirectionality?
Quote two, in which what could have been an interesting comment about poor diplomacy is hijacked by Cole’s animus against Israel:
Exhibiting moral clarity and pretending to lack of knowledge:
“Supporting orphans” is in theory not a logical identity with “funding terrorism”. But pledging to support the orphans of suicide bombers with a huge some of money for the environs is. Unfortunately for Cole’s idiocy, Saddam was doing the latter. cite
Juan Cole forgets about a little place called Hama:
Gee I wonder what would happen if terrorists threatened the Syrian regime? I wonder if they would shell a whole city and indiscriminately kill 20,000+? Why yes, I think they would. I wonder if Syria would enslave a country for over 20 years? Why yes I think they would. But by all means, let us focus on the demon Sharon. And by all means let us ignore the difference between peaceful demonstrations and what the Palestinians actually do against Israelis.
Cole confuses this world with a world in which a majority of International Relations professors are Pro-Israel:
As Daniel Drezner says: In fact, I’ll dare Cole to find a single syllabus at the American Political Science Association archive or elsewhere with a “Zionist” bent.
And even Farrel at Crooked Timber can’t swallow that one link
Basically whenever the subject of Israel comes up, Cole goes completely and totally off his rocker. So when he ascribes motives as having to with Israel, he tends to miss quite a bit because Israel is HIS obsession, not everyone’s. This happens when he ascribes motivations to US actors (the neocons don’t do things to serve Greater Israel, at least stick to a pseudo-reasonable explanation like they fear nuclear bombs or think that strategic access to oil could be threatened) and he does the same thing with bin Laden, for who Israel is one of a long laundry list of problems.
Sorry lost the Crooked Timber link. It is here
What I have never understood, from those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel, is the short memory.
A stateless people herded into camps, a feared and despised race long abused? Who could not tolerate it any longer, and decided to take matters into their own hands? And you do not neccessarily approve, but don’t know what you would do in their place?
I just got a book out of the library that I did not know existed, called Underground to Palestine by I.F. Stone–a leftist if there ever was one; he’s also Jewish. In the spring of 1946 he traveled to Palestine with a group of Eastern European Jews who were illegally migrating there from displaced persons camp in Europe. This is from the Epilogue of the book:
The rest of the epilogue is by turns hopelessly naive:
and sadly, more accurate:
Stone btw remained a proponent of a one-state for a long time, and could be quite critical of Israel. In an afterword to the same book, written in 1978, he quotes a writer named Hans Kohn’s description of
As for the six day war:
Under our criminal laws, if someone pulls a gun or knife on you, you have every reason to believe they will attempt to kill you, and the only way to defend yourself is to use deadly force, so you shoot them–we do not call that murder. We call it self-defense. Is that dishonest spin? I don’t think it is.
What I have never understood, from those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel, is the short memory.
Katherine, by the logic of everything you’ve just said, that statement can just as easily be turned around. If the Israelis have been in the same position as the Palestinians, why don’t they have more sympathy for them?
Iron Lungfish,
Maybe we could think of this by comparing tactics. Israel admittedly does targeted assasinations against militants.
The militants admittedly target civilians.
You do see the difference don’t you?
IL, who says Katherine doesn’t have sympathy for the Palestinians? I have sympathy for them – they’ve been forced to share their land with foreigners who thrived, they’ve been used as pawns by their brethren, they’ve been horribly led by Arafat. They should have a peaceful prosperous nation of their own. But I don’t have sympathy for those of them who turned to terrorism.
Maybe we could think of this by comparing tactics. Israel admittedly does targeted assasinations against militants.
The militants admittedly target civilians.
Blogme: For an organization which isn’t supposed to be targeting civilians, the Israeli military has a much higher body count than the Palestinian terrorists do.
Rilkefan: I have no sympathy for Palestinian terrorists. I was just wondering what Katherine finds so bizarre about “those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel.” Palestinians are living under military rule, with no citizenship and in wretched conditions made worse by an Israeli government that finds their existence to be at best a nuisance and at worst an obstacle or an active threat. They have no country and no rights, and they are routinely identified on the world stage with a hapless and corrupt civil authority and a cabal of malevolent extremists. Of course I’m going to sympathize with the Palestinians.
Iron,
…”or an active threat.”
That’s an interesting comment. I wonder why they are viewed as an active threat. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that they are an active threat?
“…hapless and corrupt civil authority and a cabal of malevolent extremists.”
I’m going out on a limb here, but maybe the are identified with that because their civil authority is hapless and corrupt and the have many malevolent extremists in their midst.
“Of course I’m going to sympathize with the Palestinians.”
So do you sympathize with everyone who is viewed as an active threat? Do you sympathize with the U.S. government? It’s safe to say many countries view us as an active threat.
Do you sympathize with all countries who have hapless, corrupt, extreme civil authorities?
Isn’t that how the Bush administration is viewed?
Well, Iron Lungfish welcome to the right. Nice to have you. I’m sure Bush is glad that he can count on your sympathy from now on.
“Palestinians are living under military rule, with no citizenship and in wretched conditions made worse by an Israeli government that finds their existence to be at best a nuisance and at worst an obstacle or an active threat.”
They used to be living under nearly their own rule, with infrastructure (like universities) built by Israel and a growing economy based on peaceful trade. That significant elements of their society turned to terror, that the rest of their society did not rise against it, that their leadership sponsored it, that their leadership chose Sharon over Barak/Clinton – that’s what makes liberals like me take Israel’s side in the dispute.
What I have never understood, from those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel, is the short memory.
This is an interesting observation, and perhaps some discussion about it might reduce the temp. (please remember that none of these observations should be taken to discuss anyone’s personal and particular observations. Truth to tell, in regards to I/P discussions, I have a hard time remembering who holds what and why)
One reason is that liberals tend to have a general passion for the underdog. This ends up being an interesting split, because some say that one has to view Israel, surrounded by countries that want it gone, as the ultimate underdog, while the Palestinians are, certainly in the past couple of decades, would qualify.
Conservatives in general have a prenatural ability for exploiting divisions in liberal ranks in a way that doesn’t seem possible for liberals to do. As a quick example, the split between isolationists and pax Americana type conservatives has never been exploited. It could be argued that the conservative isolationist wing is so small, unlike the split that liberals have over I/P issues, but I do believe that conservatives have been much more savvy peeling off pro israel liberals, which I believe set the stage for the whole pro-war liberal phenomenon.
It is also interesting that the Palestinians have represented, from my understanding, a relatively secular approach to nationhood (I seem to remember hearing that it was Israel that helped Hamas get started so as to create a counterweight to Arafat and the PLO) From that viewpoint, support of Palestinian aspirations of a separate nation (as opposed to more radical statements, I hope we can agree that there are moderate Palestinians) is a continuation, in a highly attenuated form, of the rhetoric of self-determination, which is a hill on which liberals and conservatives often try to plant their flags.
A further point is that Jews still occupy the slot of the other in Western minds and I don’t believe it is possible to simply erase that. This leads both sides to often hold contradictory ideas about the state of Israel. Add to that the level of guilt that may be felt by various people over the attempted eradication of the Jews by the Nazis, and you have a situation where it is very difficult to understand if one shares the same knowledge and understanding, even though the end recommendations are the same. As an extreme example, there are those in the Christian fundamentalist community that feel that “and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.” link)
I am going to assume that there is no one here that would be classified in this group, so this isn’t talking about anyone here, but if this is the background reasoning, is this the same as supporting Israel because of the reasons that Katherine mentioned?
Again, this has absolutely little if anything to do with anyone’s specific comments in this thread. To (correctly) quote Bob McManus, “I remain hopeful, but skeptical” seems the most appropriate response.
Don’t know how my quote got cut off, but the full one (which is a description of so called Christian Zionists) is:
“Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”
Again, JFTR, I’m not adducing that view to anyone here.
A further point is that Jews still occupy the slot of the other in Western minds and I don’t believe it is possible to simply erase that
I disagree. I think that the problem is that when Israel was created, there were 750,000 Jews in other ME countries that got forced out of those countries and into Israel. Exceptions are Turkey (non-Arab), and Morocco (not-ME). My perception is that the Jewish settlers in the West Bank consider themselves to be Jews in their ancestral homeland rather than citizens of Israel, and would accept being Jewish minority citizens of a Palestinian state that would include them. But you see, most of the other ME countries, and the would=be nation of Palestine will not make accomodations for Jews the way that Israel has done for the 20-25% of its non-Jewish citizens.
In other words, when a Jew can buy a condominium in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, or Palestine. without that being a capital offense or some other felony, then I might reconsider whether Israelis are bad for whatever wrongs they might do, although I won’t agree that they are the offspring of pigs and monkeys.
I disagree. I think that the problem is that when Israel was created, there were 750,000 Jews in other ME countries that got forced out of those countries and into Israel.
That’s a good point, but the thrust of my comment was to try and understand how (primarily American) liberals and conservatives develop their positions. I don’t think it is possible to understand the kerflufle about Neo-Cons=Jews or Hastert’s ill considered comments about Soros, let alone have some vague notion of what planet Lyndon LaRouche is orbiting without understanding that there is this love/hate relationship with Jews in the Western mind.
What I have never understood, from those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel, is the short memory.
Katherine, if you want to critique a point of view, it helps to let the reader know what point of view you have in mind. These days “the left” is used as a blanket term for everyone who faults the Bush administration. That puts you a long way out there on the left.
Perhaps you refer to Juan Cole, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that a professional historian has a short memory – even if he gives his enemies an opening now and then by getting his chronology wrong. You can hardly mean Stone, since he answers your question in the passages you quote, at least in the sense that he shows considerable sympathy for the Palestinians. Both Cole and Stone illustrate the fact that a short memory isn’t a requirement for that.
DaveC: My perception is that the Jewish settlers in the West Bank consider themselves to be Jews in their ancestral homeland rather than citizens of Israel
That’s odd, because my perception is pretty much exactly the reverse: that the settlers on the West Bank believe themselves to be Israelis living in Israel.
and would accept being Jewish minority citizens of a Palestinian state that would include them.
Again, my perception is exactly the reverse: they would not.
Can I ask – as a matter of interest – where you get your perceptions from? Mine began with a friend who wanted to live in Israel (this was when we were both 17), and eventually did, for five years, before moving back to the UK: but have spread out from there with a large amount of reading – novels by Israelis and interviews with Israelis and Palestinians, and history – ranging from the autobiographical to the academic.
Iron Lungfish: If the Israelis have been in the same position as the Palestinians, why don’t they have more sympathy for them?
Actually, many of them do (B’Tselem
was set up by Israelis, for example.) IME, Israeli Jews are much more likely to understand and sympathize with Palestinians than Americans are: Americans, after all, generally get only the one-sided media reportage that deals only with Israeli casualties and makes every Palestinian attack unprovoked. Israelis tend to be considerably better-informed about both sides (not all, by all means, of course).
HRW
Jes,
As DaveC was addressing a comment of mine that probably wasn’t too clear, I should stick up for him here in that he does point out a particular problem which has always bedeviled the I/P situation, which was the polarization that began with the 1919 Balfour declaration, but was really brought to a head with the UN partition. I would like to believe that there are Jews who would be willing to live in a non Israel state (I guess this would be something along the lines of the one state solution) though, as you note, it is impossible to see it through the US media reportage.
I would repeat Bob’s phrase, but I’m worried that he’s going to start charging.
They used to be living under nearly their own rule…
Rilkefan, they never had their own rights or their own citizenship. At the time you’re talking about it was common for Israel to resort to the old “there are no Palestinians” defense. At any rate, the question would be why someone would have more sympathy for Palestinians than Israel now. I would say the actions of the Israeli government today, which include the construction of settlements that really have no justification with regards to keeping the peace or protecting its citizens from terror, more than justify that sympathy.
Jes: I’m aware that there are plenty of Israeli citizens who are doing their best to try to end the suffering of Palestinians, but the Israeli government has show very little of that sympathy. Even the Gaza pullout is still being accompanied, to my knowledge, by an expansion of settlements in the West Bank and further construction of a barrier that cuts deep into Palestinian territory. These are not sympathetic actions.
(If I failed to distinguish between Israelis and the government of Israel previously, I apologize for the confusion.)
Blogme: Just because someone is viewed as an active threat doesn’t mean they are; Palestinian civilians shouldn’t be confused with Hamas any more than Israelis should be confused with their government. And as far as Palestinian terror goes, how the hell does a policy of colonizing Palestinian territory serve to protect Israel or neutralize threats like Hamas? All it does is beggar the Palestinians even more, and provoke more bloodshed.
What I have never understood, from those on the left who tend to sympathize with the Palestians more than with Israel, is the short memory.
Au contraire, it is precisely the memory that drains sympathy from Israel. Who should better understand that conquest and humiliation do not lead to peace?
A couple of elements that work for me are (1) Israel is a client state, and thus can be held to the higher standards appropriate to our conduct and, a related but not identical point, (2) Israel is a civilized country, which ought to have the moral background to recognize the difference between right and wrong. In this latter sense, I would put I far, far ahead of P — which is not a very high standard to meet — but still not
adequate.
I’m not sympathetic to the terrorists at all, but, well, when you engage in colonialism/conquest, you have to expect resistance. By whatever means is available. There will be no settlement without a return of East Jerusalem, and no Israeli government — not even Barak’s — has been prepared to go that far. Israel could get by even without a settlement, and drain away a great deal of sympathy for the P side, if it (a) built the wall on the international boundary and (b) stopped using targetted assaninations, which often result in the killing of innocents.
I’m not talking about you Charley. I’m talking about those who feel, or act as if they feel, that it is somehow different when a terrorist attacks Haifa rather than London, Madrid or New York. The ones trying to blacklist Israeli professors, or getting my old town’s city council to divest. The ones who say in polls that the strongest force in U.S. foreign policy is the Jews. The ones who have fooled themselves into thinking that Joe Lieberman and Paul Wolfowitz represent all Jews in America, forgetting that, say, Jon Corzine and Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold are equally Jewish. And I didn’t say “the Left”–of which I consider myself a part–I said “those on the left”. I realize that is irritatingly imprecise but I don’t really know how to define the group with greater precision.
I think there is a small group of people who are just plain anti-Semitic, and a larger group among whom it’s just trendy to support the Palestinians and oppose Israeli imperialism. I’d guess a lot of them are as seriously anti-semitic as college kids wearing Che t-shirts are seriously pro-Communist dictatorship.
None of this does anything to alleviate my frustration with a lot of Israel’s policies.
“The ones who say in polls that the strongest force in U.S. foreign policy is the Jews.”
And unfortunately one of those is Prof. Cole which is why we are talking about this in the first place.
I agree, btw, that the response to Israel by the terrorists is predictable. But the response by Israelis to terrorism is equally predictable. It is all utterly predictable, how easy it is for the extremists on each side to undercut the moderates–to see Sharon undercut Abbas,
to see the terrorists destroy the Israeli left as a political force, to see Rabin murdered and Hamas launch terrorists attacks and Israel respond by electing Netanyahu. It is predictable that Israel, having had its existence threatened for its entire history, thought extra land might be needed to keep it secure. It is all quite predictable, in Israel as in the United States.
I’m talking about those who feel, or act as if they feel, that it is somehow different when a terrorist attacks Haifa rather than London, Madrid or New York.
As opposed to those who feel, or act as if they feel, that it is somehow different when Israelis attack on Palestinian civilians, than when Palestinians attack Israeli civilians?
For quite a while it was true (not precisely, but near enough) that the number of Palestinian children killed by the IDF was roughly equal to the total number of Israel casualties. Yet, all the American media ever seemed to want to talk about was the Israeli casualties.
2shoes,
The Berlin Wall was meant to keep its own freedom-seeking citizens from escaping. There was no need to have a wall defensewise. The Israeli fence is strictly for national defense, intended to keep certain non-Israelis from entering, unauthorized, into their sovereign state. The difference is fundamental.
It’s also working to destroy the Palestinian economy, such as there is…
How? The PA didn’t have a functioning economy before the fence was built. It was a kleptocracy with Arafat being the biggest klept. I’m not saying that the fence didn’t cause economic turmoil, but again, what do you expect when a small nation is pummeled with terrorist attacks and the Palestinian leader does practically nothing to stop them? This is called living with the consequences of your actions. The Palestinians had a template to get what they wanted. All they had to do was see how Gandhi did what he did. Instead, its leaders chose the evil and morally bankrupt tactic of terrorism. The best way to defeat this terrorism is to demonstrate how failed a tactic it is. There’s no excuse for resorting to terrorism.
Sheldon L. Richman in his “Ancient History” (which I consider a good and neutral source)
When an author acknowledges his “immeasurable intellectual debt” to Noam Chomsky, abbi, there is no way he can be seen as a “neutral source”. I suggest finding better sources. So far, you’ve linked to communist publications and Chomskyites to back up your cases. Utterly unconvincing.
I’m not saying that the fence didn’t cause economic turmoil, but again, what do you expect when a small nation is pummeled with terrorist attacks
I expect them to build the wall on international boundaries, rather than using it as a pretext to appropriate land.
That’s not demanding too much, it it?
The Israeli contribution to this endless blood-letting is the expropriation of Palestinian lands by force or deceit. Its the kind of thing likely to drive people to unjustified craziness.
Israelis like to depict Palestinians as crazed half-humans who can’t be bargained with. Funny how people get that way when you steal their land.
I guess I was imprecise; I guess I should have said “sympathize with the Palestians and not at all with Israel” or “much more than Israel” rather than “more.” It is predictable that some people be more in sympathy with the Palestinians, especially people who are Arabs and Muslim–we almost all identify more with people who are mistreated in part because they share a characteristic with us. I find Cole biased, unfair and untrustworthy on this subject (again, only on this subject!) but there are many American Jews (and non-Jews, actually) who are equally unfair and untrustworthy in the other direction.
As to the “higher expectations” thing, I have higher expectations of the United States than Al Qaida or Egypt or Syria or 100 other countries; this does not translate into being more sympathetic to them than the United States. I flatly reject Dershowitz’s claim that American Jews should not be more upset by the wrongs committed by Israel than those committed by any other country in the world. I find it frankly absurd, considering the help from American Jews that Israel has called on and received on the basis of its religious and cultural ties to them. And yes, America is entitled to ask more of its allies–but it is the fact that they ARE our ally that entitles us to ask more.
And finally, the people who cynically dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, and those who actually shade into either genuine anti-semitism, need each other just as much as the suicide bombers and the violent extremist settlers need each other.
It’s not of course the same scale. They don’t kill anyone. But both groups are making it almost impossible to have a decent discussion about this without being misunderstood.
I often find that the same things that create tragedies in geopolitics repeat themselves as farce in the domestic political debates of democracies. Democrats tend to argue that “if we do (something we oppose), Karl Rove wins” or that “Rove wants us to vote for (primary candidate I do not support)” in a way which is parallel to and just as stupid as the arguments that “if we do (policy that I oppose) the terrorists win”, or “a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden.”
The same Democrats who reject the argument that we can freely disregard the Geneva Conventions and the torture convention because Al Qaida doesn’t follow either, will turn around and argue that we are politically doomed, DOOMED unless we fight as dirty as the GOP.
etc. etc.
The Palestinians had a template to get what they wanted. All they had to do was see how Gandhi did what he did.
Truer words could not be spoken. Sadly, Hamas or others of that ilk would have assassinated any such person long ago.
dmbeaster: Sadly, Hamas or others of that ilk would have assassinated any such person long ago.
And if they didn’t, the IDF surely would have. Along with any civilians standing nearby, of course.
“And if they didn’t, the IDF surely would have.”
Really? Which non-violent leader has the IDF assassinated? Hell, which non-violent leader exists or existed among the Palestinians?
what do you expect when a small nation is pummeled with terrorist attacks and the Palestinian leader does practically nothing to stop them? This is called living with the consequences of your actions. The Palestinians had a template to get what they wanted. All they had to do was see how Gandhi did what he did. Instead, its leaders chose the evil and morally bankrupt tactic of terrorism.
Charles, the trouble with that is that Israel’s policies play a role in undercutting Palestinians who oppose terrorism. Abbas is not Gandhi, but he’s not Arafat either.
Similarly, those who argue that Palestinian terrorism is a predictable response to Israel’s actions and things would be different if Israel followed more enlightened policies, have to realize that suicide bombers helped kill the chance of a more enlightened government taking power.
So in both cases, “if the other side had a better leader we wouldn’t have to act this way” is not a satisfactory response. That may be true, but if your policies are helping to prevent that leader from achieving power, what kind of excuse is it?
People tend to talk about countries and ethnic groups if they were autonomous individuals, with one mind and one brain and free will. They aren’t. They are collections of individuals with free will. It difficult to force an individual to murder or torture someone; a rational, sane adult has a choice. But there is no living, thinking entity called Israel or Palestine that has a choice. Countries, religions, political parties, ethnic groups–they are made up of individuals, and it is not always possible for one individual to change his country’s or society’s actions. He may try as hard as he can, and still fail. This is especially true of citizens in repressive dictatorships, but it is also true of democracies. You can’t forget internal politics in these discussions.
The Berlin Wall was meant to keep its own freedom-seeking citizens from escaping. There was no need to have a wall defensewise. The Israeli fence is strictly for national defense, intended to keep certain non-Israelis from entering, unauthorized, into their sovereign state. The difference is fundamental.
No, actually it’s not. A wall by definition prevents the movement of population. Whether it was built to keep people or keep people out is irrelevant, as the group of people on the “wrong side” will be inconvienced at best, and suffer great hardship at worst.
When an author acknowledges his “immeasurable intellectual debt” to Noam Chomsky, abbi, there is no way he can be seen as a “neutral source”. I suggest finding better sources. So far, you’ve linked to communist publications and Chomskyites to back up your cases. Utterly unconvincing.
Poisoning the well. Utterly typical.
Yes, Katherine. What I find the most frustrating is that the terrorists’ primary objective — derailing negotiations — has been repeatedly acheived.
Agreed about Gandhi. I’d settle for a Palestinian Mandella. The fact that neither exists, though, is no excuse for (a) settlements in the WB or (b) putting the wall somewhere other than the international boundary.
I didn’t mention collective punishment in my comment above about what Israel does that I find beyond the pale, but should have. It’s not just wrong, it’s ineffectual.
Yes, it’s almost as if the party in question had listed Ayn Rand as a primary intellectual influence.
“A wall by definition prevents the movement of population. Whether it was built to keep people or keep people out is irrelevant, as the group of people on the “wrong side” will be inconvienced at best, and suffer great hardship at worst.”
This is exactly what I am talking about when I complain about a failure to make useful moral distinctions. You can’t add much to the discussion of civil rights if you can’t understand the difference between the use of a lock on a door to lock someone out of your house so they can’t kill you, or the use of a lock on a door to lock someone into a place. If you wanted to have a useful discussion it might be possible to say that the wall is more like locking someone in than locking someone out. You would have a tough sell, but you would be having a useful conversation.
In fact, you do no such thing. Instead you try to assert that there is no moral difference between locking in and locking out.
The fact that a lock on my door inconveniences a burglar kept on the ‘wrong side’ while also keeping out my best friend if I’m not there doesn’t trouble me at all.
“Your comments reminds me of the those who say, ‘I’m not racist, I just think black people should be kept separate.'”
What was that about personal attacks again, Blogme?
By the way there was a response upthread about the 6 Days War which noted that Nasser’s objective in his compact with Jordan was the destruction of Israel.
Is that poisoning the well too?
Poisoning the well. Utterly typical.
Who poisoned what, shoes? Who do you think is poisonous here, communists and Chomskyites or a moderate conservative?
Prodigal,
1) I don’t think one poster can pile on. If you look here people start bad mouthing Charles from the beginning and then keep on.
2) I didn’t accuse anyone of “being” racist.
I said Cole’s comment reminded me of another I had heard. My comment wasn’t even directed towards what 2shoes said. His response was not arguable.
We were talking about COLEcommenting that the EXISTENCE of Israel is the major cause of terrorism against the west…
And I said that “reminded me of some comments we have all heard from 50 years ago. It does remind me of that and I would think most people would think that was racist.
Who poisoned what, shoes?
You did, Charles, with your blanket dismissal “communists and Chomskyite” – the former of which we only have your say so (something which your track record has sadly rendered meaningless), and the latter…I mean so what. So what for both? Richman builds an argument. Deal with it, not whether he passes Charles Bird’s personal ideology test. This is so typical of you. It’s intellectual cowardice.
Perhaps, from now on, we should regally wave our hands in each of your diaries and say “Oh, it’s Charles, he’s a Bushite extremist. Pay him no mind” instead of pointing out your numerous argumentive flaws and logical fallacies. Think of the time we’d save.
2shoes, what do you think of Nasser’s comment that the pact with Jordan was for the destruction of Israel? Doesn’t that bit of evidence cause a bit of a problem for Richman’s argument? You seem far more willing to attack Charles than to deal with the fact that Nasser formed a pact with the intention of destroying Israel.
Deal with it, not whether he passes Charles Bird’s personal ideology test. This is so typical of you. It’s intellectual cowardice.
No, shoes, it’s shorthand. It saves time and keeps us from dealing with chaff in the debate. Chomskyites don’t deserve the time of day, and nor do communists. You should know Counterpunch’s leanings, there’s no need for a cite to support the contention that they’re hard left defenders of failed communist ideology.
“If you look here people start bad mouthing Charles from the beginning and then keep on.”
Unless you’re trying to argue that it isn’t a personal attack until more than one person has done the attacking, that is irrelevant.
“I didn’t accuse anyone of ‘being’ racist.”
No, you instead implied that Cole’s comments were the equivalent of racist statements. That’s the exact sort of “definition of ‘is’ is” statement that people criticised Clinton for.
Well, except that you then went on to state outright that you were trying to draw a connection between Cole and racists from decades ago…
Doesn’t that bit of evidence cause a bit of a problem for Richman’s argument?
Does it? Perhaps you could expand on that? What is Richman’s argument, exactly? Perhaps while we’re at it, you could mention what Nasser had called King Hussein just days earlier?
And, to return to my original point, why didn’t Charles address Richman with tangible points, rather than well-poisoning namecalling? You may ultimately disagree with Richman’s thesis, but it is obviously a serious work.
Prodigal
“No, you instead implied that Cole’s comments were the equivalent of racist statements.”
Well, I really didn’t mean to “imply” it.
I state that it “reminds” me of other racists comments. I freely admit that it does. Hence, why he might be interpreted as being anti-semitic.
“Well, except that you then went on to state outright that you were trying to draw a connection between Cole and racists from decades ago…”
Well, yes. That is really the point now isn’t it. Talks like a duck. Walk likes a duck. Looks like a duck. Alot of people might think its a duck.
I don’t actually know if he is racist. If you bothered to read my posts I even stated that he sounded more anti-Israeli than anti-Semitic. That is relevant to you, isn’t it?
He’s the one who keeps quacking. My comment says that if he keeps quacking people might think he’s a duck.
2shoes, you provide Richman as alleged support for the proposition that it was Israel which was to blame for the war. Are you withdrawing that now? Are you hiding behind him and now going to profess that isn’t your view? Did you raise the issue just to be an ass? Do you think that Nassar saying that his pact with Jordan was made to destroy Israel is NOT a “tangible point”? Was you failure to address Jordanian troop movements an oversight or intentional–despite the fact that I have raised the issue twice? Have you added any value whatsoever to this conversation over the course of more than one hundred and seventy comments or are you just a troll trying to derail the topic and engage in namecalling? Editor Note I see that abb1 raised the Richman quote and 2shoes just hopped on it, which makes him perhaps slightly less of an ass for now pretending that the quotes mean nothing.
Also 2shoes, in response to a request that I back up my view that Cole was anti-Semitic I provided a large number of suspicious cites in my July 17, 2005 6:36 comment. Perhaps you missed it? Or perhaps you were hoping I wouldn’t?
This argument about the start of the Six Day War may mislead some into thinking that attacks on Israel are the result of the occupation. Terrorist and other attacks on Israel between 1948 and 1967 were numerous. The PLO (covenant and all) was founded in 1964. Dare I ask who rejected a two state solution and started the war in 1948? Some of the commenters seem to agree with Professor Cole that effects may precede causes.
Sebastian: Also 2shoes, in response to a request that I back up my view that Cole was anti-Semitic I provided a large number of suspicious cites in my July 17, 2005 6:36 comment. Perhaps you missed it? Or perhaps you were hoping I wouldn’t?
I couldn’t find a single anti-Semitic quote in any of those, Sebastian. Surely, surely you can do better than that to back up your “suspicions” than post Cole’s analysis, right or wrong, that is critical of a government’s policies and doesn’t attack a people or ethnicicity.
I’m rapidly becoming disgusted with this two-tone thinking. Critical of US foreign policy? You must be anti-American. Don’t like Isreali policy in the occupied territories? You hate Jews.
And I apologize for my immoderate tone, but I feel like saying far worse. That particual smear is so vile that it should be based on more than a faint “suspicion.”
I quoted Cole as actually believing the US government is run by the Jews and for Israel ‘analysis’ that is favored by anti-Semites everywhere.
“So, it may be that the powerful Likudniks inside the US government are deliberately engineering a diplomatic rift in NATO, so as to ensure that Paris and Moscow cannot position themselves to influence Washington’s position (usually supine) toward Sharon’s excesses.”
This is anti-Semitic because it is so divorced from foreign policy reality as to leave no other explanation for throwing the Jews in there.
The same is true with this quote:
“I am surprised she left out what surely was the Neocons’ major concern, which is that Iraq, Iran and Syria stood in the way of Ariel Sharon’s continued theft of Arab land in the Occupied territories and potentially elsewhere, by virtue of their willingness to support groups like Hezbollah and the Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The Neocons wanted to knock down Saddam, Khamenei and al-Asad in hopes that those countries would be so weakened and preoccupied with internal power struggles that Sharon would have an unimpeded opportunity to pursue his dreams of Greater Israel and the final destruction of the Oslo Peace Accords.”
That is fevered-thinking. The idea that one of the major concerns in invading Iraq was doing it so that Saddam would be distracted and Sharon could carry out a dream of Greater Israel is freaking crazy. And no matter who you blame for the end of the Oslo Peace Accords, they were quite done long before Cole’s frightening neo-cons came to power. I’m perfectly happy to disagree with the foreign policy analysis of Katherine or Edward or Charles or Chirac or Bush, but Cole is not engaging in foreign policy analysis when he does that. He is engaging in innuendo-smear.
He doesn’t have to say “I hate Jews”. He is an intellectual. He engages in the conspiracy-theorizing about Jews being the center of all important world decisions that is one of the classic hallmarks of anti-Semites. That first quote would fit perfectly well in a modern-day Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The second would fit well too. And he would never give so much leeway to Israel as to try to pass off such garbage as “Saddam Hussein never gave any real support to the Palestinian cause, and he did not pay suicide bombers to blow themselves up.” So sorry, he just paid their families a huge sum of money after they blew themselves to help orphans but for some reason couldn’t be bothered to pay as much to other orphans. No support there.
What is Cole? A defense lawyer or a historian?
The logical inference from the way his view of reality warps sickeningly whenever the topic of Israel or Jews comes up (and in fact they way in which he introduces it as a dominant theme when it doesn’t need to come up) is the sign of an anti-Semite. That isn’t a suspicion, that the logical inference from clearly and repeatedly stated views.
Not intended snarkily: SH‘s reasoing at 08:15 is much like that of Neiwert’s re the rise of pseudofascism.
rilkefan: But is that a compliment or not?
you provide Richman as alleged support for the proposition that it was Israel which was to blame for the war. Are you withdrawing that now?
No. I held Richman (cited by another) up as someone who deserved to be read and critiqued on the merits of his thesis and supporting evidence. And not dismissed with a blanket.
Read the thread again. You are obviously mistaking me for someone else.
Also 2shoes, in response to a request that I back up my view that Cole was anti-Semitic I provided a large number of suspicious cites in my July 17, 2005 6:36 comment. Perhaps you missed it? Or perhaps you were hoping I wouldn’t?
I hate to break this to you, but none, and I mean none, did back up your claim.
You need to take a timeout, you’ve stopped listening.
“Not intended snarkily: SH’s reasoing at 08:15 is much like that of Neiwert’s re the rise of pseudofascism.”
Only sort of. I use Cole’s own words to infer his own thinking . Neiwert uses the most extremist person he can find so he can use their words to attack third parties.
2shoes, you never started listening. In reviewing your contributions to this thread I can’t find a single time you have responded to someone’s arguments. All you do is throw smoke and more smoke and further rhetorical smoke.
You write:
And when I did (I quote Nasser) you completely ignored it. You don’t even dismiss it with a blanket. A quote from the principle decision-maker in question directly on point IS supporting evidence. It isn’t just supporting evidence of a solid criticism, it is damning to faulty thesis. You claiming that there has been a blanket dismissal is just rhetorical garbage, empty of meaning.
As for this smoke: “I hate to break this to you, but none, and I mean none, did back up your claim.” Is it your contention that the only possible evidence for racism is direct statements to the effect of “I hate X”? Would you be comfortable if that were applied to discrimination suits for black people or should other things (like statistical disparity) be evidence? According to your apparent evidentiary standard, racism is practically dead in the US. Fabulous. I never would have guessed.
Anarch – well, I tend to agree with Neiwert and disagree with SH – my point simply was that I suspect that those here who react strongly to the latter’s argument are likely to agree with the former’s argument. That is, I disagree with SH for the reason cited above, but don’t think his take on Cole can be dismissed out of hand. Certainly some of the quotes above from Cole are striking.
2shoes, I think you’re mistaking “not agreeing with you” for “not listening to you”. Take a timeout yourself and think it over.
Would the following be evidence of racism:
“The Democratic Party is run by black people. It is always worried about what black people want and trying to further their interests. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the most obvious reason why Democrats want to control the Supreme Court. They clearly want to to use it to free black criminals so they can ravage society.”
This is clearly racist and not particularly far from the silliness that Cole engages in his “The US invaded Iraq to distract attention from Sharon” argument. There are all sorts of good (to Democrats) reasons why Democrats would want to influence the Supreme Court. If your mind is so preoccupied with black people that you think that one of the main reasons Democrats want to control the Supreme Court is so they can free black criminals at the bidding of the ‘black cabal’ controlling Democratic leadership, you are an anti-black racist. If you can’t see that such a construction is both deeply misstating the aims of Democrats and not one of the highest priorities for Democrats even if phrased in their own terms, you are very likely focusing on the black issue because you are a racist.
Cole does the same with Jews and Israel.
How about
The Palestinians had a template to get what they wanted. All they had to do was see how Gandhi did what he did.
The trouble here is that there actually are a lot of non-violent protests going on (by palestinians and often israeli’s too), but you do not hear about them in the media. You really have to follow the human rights sites to know about them I find, since they are not mentioned elsewhere.
I used to be very pro-Israel and not think a lot about the Palestinians about 20 years ago. In those 20 years that slowly changed. The killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinians is totally wrong, as is the corruption in the Palestinian leadership. Violence begets violence and people should be able to trust their leadership.
Unfortunately the list of things that Isreal does that should be condemned is much longer. Though they do not do anything as horrendous as the suicide bombers do to them, the disregard of civilian victims in their targeted assasinations leads to about the same amount of civilian deaths.
I remember that the Netherlands build a harbour for the Palestinians (millions of euro’s in aid) and that the Israeli’s demolished it without proper cause. I often read about infrastructure, houses, equipment (computers and such), demolished without proper cause. The whole system of roads in the occupied territories that can be used only by settlers sets my teeth on edge.
Water is a problem in that area. But how many people realize that 75% of the water in the occupied territories is used for Israeli’s and the Palestinians don’t get enough? In our papers Israel still advertizes proudly with how they make the desert bloom (“leave your inheritance to Israel” ads)…
For a short while I got a weekly report on RSS feed about how many houses in the occupied territories were demolished that week, and how many acres of olives plantations and such – but I stopped it because it was so depressing. No horrible stories, but the continuous drip of robbing people of their livehood or home, without anything that could be done about it.
Calling the barrier between the two countries a fence instead of a wall is weird, if the barrier is on average 60 mtrs wide IMHO. But that might be my English. As CharlieCarp allready stated: it does not follow any known border and leaves the palestinians with less land, resources, cut off from their lands, with less and less control over the area. I am also suprised that it seems to cut off arabs who are Israeli citizens. That adds even more confusion, doesn’t it?
The Isreali government has heavily promoted settlers to build settlements and rewarded people who wanted to live in the Occupied Territories. They kept on building, no matter what kind of UN resolutions, peace treaties or agreements with the US they broke. According the the spokesperson of their government even giving up the Gaza is only a mean to make sure that they can keep the Westbank and there will not be a Palestinian State. Freeze the peaceproces is how he described it, defending his earlier statements and explaining the denials of the government. (I am not linking to the original interview, but to the defending one, this piece is allready too long)
Also, about the Jenin “massacre” claims: this article puts some doubts about where the claim originates from. Has anybody found a direct quote yet?
This does not mean that I bear ill will towards Israel – I am still rather fond of a lot of it. I believe however that these developments are bad for Israel – as do many many Isreali’s. Read the various refuseniks statements, look at the items in ‘breaking the silence’, and I though I have not read ‘checkpoint syndrom’ but what I have read about it indicates that it is another proof of why this is “staining Isreal’s soul” as someone described it.
If you look at the finding of the democracy index of Israel the trent is going in the wrong direction.
Deir Yassin The Evidence
Plan Dalet
Here are just quotes from the Israeli leadership over the last fifty years that seem to have fallen into the memory hole…
If Arafat, the man who forced the world to recognise the plight of the Palestinians , had been a Gandhi, he would have never lived to see the ends of the 1970s.
The trouble here is that there actually are a lot of non-violent protests going on (by palestinians and often israeli’s too), but you do not hear about them in the media.
There are plenty of peaceful protests, but few peaceful leaders emerge, dutch. Why? My theory is that fellow Palestinians don’t let them live. Too many Palestinians are killed by fellow Palestinians, without due process, for being “collaborators”.
Also, about the Jenin “massacre” claims: this article puts some doubts about where the claim originates from. Has anybody found a direct quote yet?
Check out Howard Kurtz. Instapundit refers to a Boston Globe piece which says the massacre claims came from none other than the PA. The PA and sympathetic media, mostly British, perpetuated this phony massacre canard.
One question about the IDI. Is there also a PDI?
Take a look at Sebastian’s “evidence” that Cole is an anti-Semite. In the first excerpt Cole is actually writing about a power-grab in the Pentagon:
Later Cole comes to the bit which Sebastian rips out of that context:
Cole concludes:
I see no indication that Cole considers that a happy outcome, but perhaps Sebastian can look into the man’s cheating heart and check it out?
In later comments Sebastian does some further work on this distortion of Cole’s remarks:
I quoted Cole as actually believing the US government is run by the Jews and for Israel ‘analysis’ that is favored by anti-Semites everywhere.
So a remark about the war aims of this group in the Pentagon’s intelligence section is represented as a remark about Jews running the entire US government. Hey, why stop there? Let’s go the whole hog:
He engages in the conspiracy-theorizing about Jews being the center of all important world decisions that is one of the classic hallmarks of anti-Semites.
Does he now? Are his remarks about the Kwiatkowsky interview the best evidence you can find for that sweeping assertion?
The bit where, according to Sebastian, “an interesting comment about poor diplomacy is hijacked by Cole’s animus against Israel” is actually about the conduct of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cole does refer to Wolfowitz as a Likudnik and he certainly doesn’t mean that as a compliment. Although I’m sure this is clear evidence of anti-Semitism in the eyes of Likudniks, it might be difficult to persuade Israeli dissidents of that.
Then there is this gem, concerning Cole’s scepticism about Saddam’s assistance to suicide bombers:
Sebastian note, good heavens Saddam says he did that, been hiding yourself from documentation?
Yes Sebastian, odd as it may seem, a professional historian likes a bit of documentation. Saddam was inclined to boast about his support for Palestinians, but a man can reasonably question whether he was as good as his word. You yourself have been known to question Saddam’s truthfulness on some issues. The US made quite a fuss at the UN about his failure to document some of his claims.
Juan Cole forgets about a little place called Hama
Well if that’s true it’s certainly a startling lapse. A historian ought to remember Hama. However, it seems more likely that Cole knows that Hama is in Syria, not in territory occupied by Syria – if it were in Lebanon, Sebastian’s gripe would make some sense. There was no reason to drag in a reference to the Hama massacre in the context.
Actually, about the best Sebastian was able to come up with is this:
Personally, I think that suggests Cole is extremely bitter about people charging that Middle East studies departments are anti-Semitic. So he hits back, clumsily.
But hey, who needs evidence? Nobody, when you can get away with this:
He doesn’t have to say “I hate Jews”. He is an intellectual.
So he’s too smart to actually say it, you see. Well, just proves it’s what he really feels, doesn’t it?
“Either way, you’re rid of the witch.”
Kevin, would “The Democratic Party is run by black people. It is always worried about what black people want and trying to further their interests. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the most obvious reason why Democrats want to control the Supreme Court. They clearly want to to use it to free black criminals so they can ravage society.” be evidence of anti-black racism in your view?
Sebastian,
Yes, and I will certainly concede that Juan Cole is an anti-Semite when you link to a statement of his somewhat like this:
It doesn’t have to be exactly like that by any means. But I won’t accept equations such as Lukudniks=Israelis or Neocons=Jews. A man can detest a political party or ideology without being a racist.
I think you’re mistaking “not agreeing with you” for “not listening to you”. Take a timeout yourself and think it over.
Oh, I am very relaxed. But Sebastien is clearly confusing me with abb1, as well as stridently refuting arguments I am not making. And please see other commentators critiques of Sebastien’s position on Cole, particularily Kevin Donoghue.
He engages in the conspiracy-theorizing about Jews being the center of all important world decisions that is one of the classic hallmarks of anti-Semites.
Dennis Prager recently had an op-ed at Townhall.com arguing that the Jews really were at the center of so many historical events of world-shaking importance, and so many world political decisions, by virtue of the fact that they actually are God’s Chosen People. Is Dennis Prager an anti-Semite?
Note: I have no opinion on whether Cole is or is not. I don’t read his blog. But Sebastian’s argument, absent further context, is not dispositive either way.
Sebastian,
I don’t see any problem with a joint defence agreement between Egypt and Jordan.
I did concede earlier that Nasser shares responsibility for political deterioration in the region. I am not a fan of Nasser, he was just a nationalist politician, not much different from most Israeli politicians.
However, the simple fact remains: Israel started the war.
You may think that it was justified, it’s an opinion popular with many people, it’s not a foolish opinion. But it’s just an opinion.
abb1,
By that logic we could also make the case that the British started the war with Germany in WW 2.
I mean the Germans invaded Poland. They didn’t attack France or Britian.
England and France for some crazy reason declared war on Germany. Surely those countries should have waited until Germany actually attack them.
History rewritten. Great Britian and France start war with Germany. That gives YOU all the context you relevant, right?
By that logic we could also make the case that the British started the war with Germany in WW 2
Candidate for the most tortured analogy?
Didn’t Great Britian and France start the war with Germany, though?
My history book says that France and the UK declared war on Germany, what sez yours?
“I state that it ‘reminds’ me of other racists comments. I freely admit that it does.”
And that is how you implied the equivalency of Cole’s post to racist remarks.
What was that about quacking like a duck, again?
“Supporting orphans” is in theory not a logical identity with “funding terrorism”. But pledging to support the orphans of suicide bombers with a huge some of money for the environs is. Unfortunately for Cole’s idiocy, Saddam was doing the latter.
Sebastian, you may be missing 3/4 of the story here by ignoring a fact that offical (until very recently, post-Saddam) Israeli policy required demolition of the houses where suicide bombers lived. Collective punishment of civilians is a war crime, you know. Supporting innocent victims of a war crime is a good deed. I’d say this Israeli policy has done much more in a way of inciting terrorism than Saddams’ 10K/family did ‘funding terrorism’.
Charles, I looked at both articles you linked too and both refer to things being said – but neither have a direct quote about who said what. So that’s still in line with the doubtfull article I linked too.
I think Miftah comes closest to an IDI alike, but of course there is no real democracy in Palestinia to index (yet?).
I mentioned quite a few grievances in my post. Are these two the only ones you want to address?
“Sebastian,
I don’t see any problem with a joint defence agreement between Egypt and Jordan.”
That isn’t really what the quote says. Nasser’s quote says the agreement is aimed at the destruction of Israel. So what do you think of that, not a hypothetical joint defence agreement.
So why, Sebastien, did Israeli leadership [rightly] conclude that there was no actual danger? ie. This was posturing by Nasser for a tempestuous domestic audience
Why did Nasser, in the weeks before this surprise agreement, call King Hussein an “imperialist lackey”?
Why did Begin admit in 1982 that it was Israel, not Nasser, that chose war?
I mentioned quite a few grievances in my post. Are these two the only ones you want to address?
Yep. I don’t have much stamina for this particular topic.
Sebastian,
“I wish to report that I have outlawed Russia forever, we begin bombing in 5 minutes” – who said that? On what country does it justify (according to your logic) a devastating sneak attack by the Russians?
Thanks.
Obviously, it is arguable if Cole is anti-semitic, but this comment really takes the cake:
Uniformed Comment
I know Afghani women aren’t Arabs, but doesn’t this statement seem irresponsible? There’s got be some women in Afghanistan that are damned thankful for the invasion.
Doesn’t it have to be encouraging to Iraqi women to see our female soldiers towing the line and having their own females do the same?
I’m not trying to give Bush credit for all of these events, but Cole’s comment is outrageous given events that have taken place in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq.
blogme: I know Afghani women aren’t Arabs, but doesn’t this statement seem irresponsible? There’s got be some women in Afghanistan that are damned thankful for the invasion.
Afghan women are Afghans, not Afghanis.
Doesn’t it have to be encouraging to Iraqi women to see our female soldiers towing the line and having their own females do the same?
It’s toeing the line, not towing the line, but as I’m not sure what you mean by it anyway…
How one Iraqi woman lost her job because the US invaded:
George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq have indeed produced a setback for women’s rights in the Arab world. And yes, Bush has been bad for women all around the globe, as from his very first executive order instituting the global gag rule… again.
And a further update on women’s rights in Iraq, blogme.
Jesurgislac,
Let’s see your contribution is to state that it is Aghan women instead of Afghani. You’d better get to work there is alot media folk, the U.N. out there for you to educate.
Are you also saying that you wish Afghan women were still under Taliban rule?
I’m sure they would just love you if you visited them and told them that.
And toeing the line instead of towing. Where I live it is more commonly referred to as tow the line because that makes more sense. Toeing is a fetish. There are many instances of grammar being sacrificed for the vernacular. It’s just the way it is.
And your article:
Iraqi Constitution May Curb Women’s Rights [NYT]
May does not a fact make.
Seems like you and Hillary need to get on the same page:
Atleast Cole doesn’t seem to be standing alone out there on the fringe.
Look, I’m in company with the Rice. Who should I choose Rice or Jesurgislac?
Funny, this is really an issue of practical application versus book smarts. I suppose that also represents the political divide for many. I encourage you to continue using “toe”. However, in the real world “tow” the line will make more sense to most Americans.
As far as Jesurgislac’s two usage comments goes (otherwise known as variation on the “spelling flame”), she is correct. Residents of Afghanistan are properly known as Afghans, and one toes the line because one is putting one’s toes on the line, as opposed to standing in any old place.
blogme: Are you also saying that you wish Afghan women were still under Taliban rule?
No. I am citing you evidence that many Afghan women say they were better off under Taliban rule.
I’m sure they would just love you if you visited them and told them that.
If you don’t want to follow the links, that’s up to you. But shouldn’t you pay attention when I quote you Nazia Hussein, who did visit Afghan women, who so far from telling them anything “travelled all over the country conducting interviews”, and says they say: “on education, employment and security there is a feeling that, generally, things have not improved … and in some cases have got worse.”
You may feel that these Afghan women are wrong to feel that things have got worse. Or you may think that Nazia Hussein got it wrong, or had an axe to grind, and go do research on her to find out her background, and claim she must be lying. But simply to claim that I’m saying this, when what I am actually doing is citing you examples of Afghans saying this, is just… well, unresponsive, shall we say?
I am not arguing that Afghan and Arab women don’t have a long road to travel. But they are starting from the bottom. But, it is a foolish argument to say that these women are worse off under Bush. Before these women had no hope. Through Bush’s actions that can now atleast dream and hope. Before they would have just been beaten or killed.
I did follow the links and they paint a one sided picture. Typical.
If not for Bush this would not have occurred anytime in the near future.
Women’s Freedom>
Would you choose for your daughters to live under the Taliban or the Karzai government?
Please just a simple, “I choose the Taliban” or “I choose the Karzai government” will suffice. A Karzai government, but would only make me laugh.
Putting sanctions in place and having the Afghan women suffer another 10, 20, 30 years isn’t really an option either. If we are going to dream, I can come up with some of my own.
Can’t we give Bush just a little credit?
“The constitution passed in December guarantees women equality with men, but women’s lives will not be changed so easily. About 57 percent of men and 86 percent of women are illiterate. More than half of Afghan girls marry before they reach the age of 16, according to a recent survey by the government and relief agencies.”
Is this the direction the Taliban was headed?
Not to beat the dead horse too much…
blogme: But, it is a foolish argument to say that these women are worse off under Bush.
Okay. So, you think that Afghan women who think they’re worse off are foolish to think so. I’m sure they’d love you to visit them and tell them that.
Would you choose for your daughters to live under the Taliban or the Karzai government?
I’d have chosen for my daughters to live under the Communist government that first Carter, then Reagan, sponsored Islanic fanatics to overthrow – and though I doubt if either Carter or Reagan gave it a thought, one reason why the mojaheddin hated the Afghan Communists so much was because the Communists were very definitely for women’s rights. (And land reform.) However, it’s too late now to tell Reagan anything, and too late now to do anything about the worst decision Jimmy Carter ever made.
But the choice is not, for the majority of Afghan women, between the Karzai government (which rules in Kabul only) and the Taliban: it’s between the Taliban and the warlords. It’s a choice between living under a system of law, ruthless and oppressive, and living under a system where the local warlord can literally do anything. That’s the system that gave rise to the Taliban: that is the system that the US let back in place.
Can’t we give Bush just a little credit?
For handing Afghanistan back to the warlords, and expecting Afghan women to be grateful for that? Certainly – that’s precisely what I am giving him credit for. It’s just that unlike you, I don’t consider that to be a good thing – perhaps because I prefer to pay attention to accounts of what Afghan women are actually saying, not to smugly say that they ought to be grateful, and if they’re not, they’re foolish.
Slarti,
Not to beat the dead horse too much…
The horse is dead. While “toe” may have been common it does look to be fading. You can argue that we should be strict with our grammar, but then we could argue that we should all be sticking to the Queen’s english and that would just be pointless.
Jesurgislac,
You fail to acknowledge that an effort is being made to improve conditions for women is Afghanistan. This would have never occurred if not for Bush.
Or perhaps you prefer to ignore the women that I quoted. Why are their opinions not relevant to you?
I’m not discounting your links. I think it is obvious that women are having a tough time throughout the Middle East. I never made the claim that Afghan or Arab women had/have achieved equality in their respective countries or that they don’t have a long hard road to walk. That’s not because of Bush. That’s cultural. I have only said that it is silly to think that Bush is hurting their cause.
Since, Bush has been in office there has been more opportunity for women in the Middle East than any other time in recent history. I cited examples of this from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Unless of course, you include westernized countries like Israel. They’ve always had more opportunity there.)
Eh? Where on earth do you get that?
Slarti,
From my post above:
The english language is constantly evolving. Using the word “toe” the line doesn’t make as much sense today as might have in the past. And often times, its not actually what one means.
While “towing” the line does make sense. It means you are pulling your share of the weight. I’m not arguing proper or historical grammar. I’m only stating in many instances it makes more sense to say “tow” the line than it does to “toe” the line.
Our female soldiers in Iraq are doing more than just stepping up to the plate, they are
carrying their share of the burden.
While it may not be grammatically correct it is vernacular:
What’s interesting about this comment is notice their use of spelt. I though spelt was a type of grain. Well atleast it is in most places in the world. Not to these pros however.
Or perhaps you prefer to ignore the women that I quoted. Why are their opinions not relevant to you?
I cited a researcher who had gone all over Afghanistan and talked to many women in many different areas. You quoted one woman in Kabul. Why are the opinions of women all over Afghanistan not relevant to you?
I have only said that it is silly to think that Bush is hurting their cause
Well, plainly, when Bush supports an Islamic government in Iraq that intends to deny women rights they had under Saddam Hussein’s regime, he is hurting the cause of women’s rights. As plainly, unless you ignore all the women in Afghanistan who don’t live in Kabul, things have got worse for most Afghan women since Bush overthrew the Taliban and then wandered away to focus attention on Iraq.
You want to play that Afghan women outside Kabul are all silly, and that Iraqi women who don’t want to lose the rights they had under Saddam Hussein are also silly, well, that can be your angle on equality for women – women are silly. But I don’t buy that.
I’ve been gone for a few days. I come back and find that Charles did respond to my citation of Israeli crimes at Jenin–his response was to say that Arabs have done worse. So has Israel. Jenin is a very tiny drop in the bucket in the record of Israeli crimes against Palestinians. Both sides have deliberately murdered countless thousands of civilians.
But it’s interesting to see Charles dismiss the shooting of a nurse, the running over of a man in a wheelchair, and the bulldozing of a house when a paralyzed man is known to be inside as comparatively minor. I would have thought these actions to be on the same level as throwing a man off an ocean liner or cutting off a prisoner’s head, but I guess not.
If this thread weren’t near death, I’d say one or two other things, but that’ll do.
Using the word “toe” the line doesn’t make as much sense today as might have in the past.And often times, its not actually what one means.
Just a suggestion, but if it’s not what you mean, then maybe you should use a different phrase, as it confuses the hell out of those of us who do know the correct usage. In the examples cited, none of them are using it in your sense of “pull your share of the weight”. They’re just using the wrong word. The fact that an error is relatively common is no reason to embrace it. You’ll note that the last quote you use to show that your usage is vernacular quite explicitly refers to it as a “mistake”. The reason homonym mistakes such as this are common is not because they signal a shift in usage, but most likely because so many more people are encountering these phrases in non-written formats and don’t know the origin.
BTW, the thing about “spelt” being misused was a joke, right?
blogme: as everyone else has said, ‘tow the line’ is just wrong. And it does not make more sense. To toe the line means: to stand where you’re supposed to stand, with your toe at the line. Not across it, not behind it, but at it. The point about Syria (in one of your examples) is not that they need to pull their weight, but that they need to get where they’re supposed to be, fall in line with everyone else, etc. If that’s not what you mean by ‘toeing the line’, then find a different phrase.
And about Bush and Arab women: whatever you think of what’s happened to Afghan women, I don’t see how this relates to Cole, since, as you noted earlier, he was talking about women in the Arab world, and Afghans aren’t Arabs.
Larv,
Nor is the origin that relevant a couple of hundred years later. This leaves me wondering if you knew that I was black if you would be this nitpicky? I seriously doubt it.
Are you honestly claiming that you didn’t understand my meaning in using the term “tow” the line? You couldn’t infer a meaning? To be so smart and yet not at the same time. Interesting.
Oh, for christ’s sake. Some of us work with language for a living, and when you’re corrected on usage, the proper thing to do is acknowledge the error and say, “Thank you,” rather than did in your heels and insist that not only is everyone else wrong, they’re stupid to boot.
By the way, Google shows:
— About 107,000 results for “toe the line”
— About 28,300 for “tow the line”
Most of the latter are notations that the correct phrase is actually the former.
blogme: Are you honestly claiming that you didn’t understand my meaning in using the term “tow” the line? You couldn’t infer a meaning?
I certainly couldn’t. Though I admit I’m beginning to regret pointing it out.
blogme: what your ethnic origins, real or fanciful, have to do with anything is a mystery to me.
I come back and find that Charles did respond to my citation of Israeli crimes at Jenin–his response was to say that Arabs have done worse.
No, Donald. The point is that most of the attention was placed on Israeli transgressions, while worse transgressions by the terrorists got little press. This does not mean that I excuse any crimes committed, by anyone. Judging by the rats’ nest of militants who stood ground, Jenin was overdue for cleaning out.
Phil,
I did atleast acknowledge that it took “book smarts” to know the difference.
— About 107,000 results for “toe the line”
— About 28,300 for “tow the line”
Yes, but 78,700 were probably from today.
Admittedly, I work with numbers everyday not words.
blogme,
Nor is the origin that relevant a couple of hundred years later.
Huh? A couple hundred years later? Are you under the impression that the last footrace was in 1800? Or are you claiming that there’s a sort of IP protection on phrases, and that as soon as two hundred years have passed since the origin of a phrase all bets are off and you can use it however you want?
Are you honestly claiming that you didn’t understand my meaning in using the term “tow” the line? You couldn’t infer a meaning? To be so smart and yet not at the same time. Interesting.
Of course I could infer what you meant, but your meaning was far less clear than it would have been had you used an appropriate phrase. Is it your intent to be cryptic and force your reader to look for contextual clues in order to divine your meaning? If not, why do it? And when someone points out your error, why argue about it? Look, this is asinine. You’re wrong, just get over it. And quit implying that people who have pointed that out are somehow stupid or prejudiced. It really doesn’t make you look any better.
You know, it’s bad enough that we have to deal with the GOP’s newfound love for moral relativism–let’s not add linguistic relativism to the rap sheet.